Paladins vs. Crusaders: the Ultimate Conflict

[eggynack]

In one corner, we have the paladin. He is apparently bound, not only by his paladin code, but also by his status as a tier five class. In the other corner, we have the crusader, who is tier three incarnate. Under ordinary circumstances, these two classes would be unevenly matched, but these are not ordinary circumstances. Instead, we shall consider this battle for supremacy from the perspective of a high optimization scenario. Will the paladin's spell access give him the edge, even early on? Or, will the crusader's mettle let him win out in the end? Perhaps we can settle this, and in so doing decide the ultimate fate of the world. This is a continuation of the argument in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292914), and is formed at the forge of the most heated of discussions. Perhaps, at the end of the day, we can find solace in our increased understanding of optimization. Perhaps we will all be destroyed utterly. Only time will tell.

[Eldonauran]

D&D was not designed to be a PvP game. Why must we have these Vs threads?

Crusader wins. Why bother?

[Fates]

D&D was not designed to be a PvP game. Why must we have these Vs threads?

Crusader wins. Why bother?

It's a question of which one functions better in its niche within the party, not which one would beat the other in a duel.

And if you pay attention to the argument in the aforementioned thread, it's not quite as simple as that.

[eggynack]

It's actually not necessarily a PvP thread. It's just a test of their comparative strengths and weaknesses at high optimization levels. This fact wasn't necessarily clear, but to get more understanding of the current argument, you might want to check out the last few pages of the thread I posted. I'm mostly just trying to move that discussion to its own thread, so that that thread can survive.

[Arbane]

Ok, level 10 of each vs. a Vrock, a Greater Fire Elemental, and three angry stone giants. Who beats them fastest, and with the least trouble?

Round one... FIGHT!

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ok, level 10 of each vs. a Vrock, a Greater Fire Elemental, and three angry stone giants. Who beats them fastest, and with the least trouble?

Round one... FIGHT!

Near zero optimization, whoever the dice favor. At peak optimization, the paladin's slinging second level wizard spells so he just glitterdusts them and pounds them into mush.

This really only leaves a question of what level of optimization makes the paladin strictly superior.

Also, and I know people are going to want to crucify me for this, crusader's not T3. It's T4.

It's good at one thing, smashing face, and not particularly relevant when that one thing is not called for. Even his buffing ability from white raven doesn't really change this. Warblade should be right there in T4 with it for that matter. Swordsage is the only one correctly placed at T3.

[eggynack]

Near zero optimization, whoever the dice favor. At peak optimization, the paladin's slinging second level wizard spells so he just glitterdusts them and pounds them into mush.

This really only leaves a question of what level of optimization makes the paladin strictly superior.

Also, and I know people are going to want to crucify me for this, crusader's not T3. It's T4.

It's good at one thing, smashing face, and not particularly relevant when that one thing is not called for. Even his buffing ability from white raven doesn't really change this. Warblade should be right there in T4 with it for that matter. Swordsage is the only one correctly placed at T3.
In that case, I think that ToB discussion is far more pertinent than paladin discussion. There's not a perfect parity there, but bards does the high optimization paladin shtick in their basic state of existence, and probably better than the paladin does. Their fighting ability isn't bad, so the main comparison is between a broad list with slow advancement, and a relatively narrow list with faster advancement. Bards can glitterdust and pummel at 4th level, while the paladin has to wait till level eight. I therefore contend that the paladin tops out at around tier three, and that's with the paladin trying to emulate a wizard as much as possible. After that, the thing that needs to be proved isn't when the paladin hits crusader levels, but whether the crusader is in tier three or not. That breakdown simplifies things a bit. I'm not exactly a supreme crusader optimizer, so I'll just wait for someone else to justify their tier ranking.

[Slipperychicken]

Well, Paladins can charge somewhat harder with spells like Rhino's Rush.

With Battle Blessing, the Paladin gets an edge with actions. I'm not familiar with their spell list, but there's got to be something great they can do with that, like landing a targeted Dispel Magic on the Crusader to knock out his gear.

Crusader can use WRT shenanigans for infinite turns, especially if he goes for an Idiot Crusader build or similar to have it every turn. After he has that set up, he just needs to get that swift action off and his enemies are finished.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, Paladins can charge somewhat harder with spells like Rhino's Rush.

With Battle Blessing, the Paladin gets an edge with actions. I'm not familiar with their spell list, but there's got to be something great they can do with that, like landing a targeted Dispel Magic on the Crusader to knock out his gear.

Crusader can use WRT shenanigans for infinite turns, especially only if he goes for an Idiot Crusader build or similar to have it every turn. After he has that set up, he just needs to get that swift action off and his enemies are finished.

Fixed that for you. I don't know why people think a crusader (or a warblade) can just spam WRT but it's just not true (outside of serious cheese). You can use it -once- before recovery becomes necessary and only the crusader has a -very slim- chance of recovering it on the same round he uses it; since he has to use it on the turn before his maneuvers auto-refresh -and- has to get lucky with having it granted. Best case scenario, he get's three turns in one round at the end of the fight -if- he didn't use the maneuver before then.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I can't quite remember who said it, but it was something along the lines of

"The Crusader has a higher floor, while the Paladin has a higher ceiling."

[eggynack]

I can't quite remember who said it, but it was something along the lines of

"The Crusader has a higher floor, while the Paladin has a higher ceiling."
Well, that's the general consensus we're discussing. What I think is the main question here is where the crusader's floor and ceiling are. Kelb's contention is that the floor, at the very least, is at tier four. At the maximum level, the contention is that their ceiling, being close to their floor, is also at tier four. It's a questionable claim, but that just means that it's a claim we can question. I think that we have a pretty good idea of what an optimized paladin looks like by this point. It's something we talk about all the time, because the paladin's ability to function comes under fire, and it generates arguments. The crusader's ability to function is never brought under fire, so we get stuck at tons of turns with white raven tactics, the 1d2 crusader, and possibly infinite out of combat healing. I'd like it if we didn't get stuck there, because we have a whole bunch of things to work with, and we should try to work with them.

[Vortenger]

D&D was not designed to be a PvP game. Why must we have these Vs threads?

"Cause its fun. :smallwink: Ever done a 20th level battle arena? They can be quite the event.

[ArqArturo]

Divine might. Power attack. Falchion.

[Eldariel]

Divine might. Power attack. Falchion.

And what, pray tell, is that supposed to accomplish? Hitting someone for mediocre damage?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I can't quite remember who said it, but it was something along the lines of

"The Crusader has a higher floor, while the Paladin has a higher ceiling."

That was likely me, since that's a phrase I used, almost verbatim, the first time we seriously compared the two. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13890255) (mathematical comparison of damage potential starts on post 135.)

My paladin optimization is rather noteably higher than my crusader optimization, but that's largely because all there is to optimize on a crusader, as far as I can see, is maneuver selection and all the usual suspects for a melee character.

Except for a few light-weight action economy tweakers in White Raven, what exactly is a crusader good at besides smashing face?

BFC? Most of the lock-down tricks are independent of class. All the crusader brings to the table is thicket of blades; a low level stance that anyone who's willing to sink a feat or a little gold can get.

He's not any better suited to tripping than any other warrior.

He's decidedly less capable of ubercharging than a barbarian or a paladin.

He can't face any better than a paladin, since both have cha synergy and both have diplomacy as class skills and that's it.

So far as I can tell, all the crusader has over the paladin is more flavorful in-combat options. That's definitely nice, but it doesn't make the class superior by any stretch.

[Eldariel]

That was likely me, since that's a phrase I used, almost verbatim, the first time we seriously compared the two. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13890255) (mathematical comparison of damage potential starts on post 135.)

My paladin optimization is rather noteably higher than my crusader optimization, but that's largely because all there is to optimize on a crusader, as far as I can see, is maneuver selection and all the usual suspects for a melee character.

Except for a few light-weight action economy tweakers in White Raven, what exactly is a crusader good at besides smashing face?

BFC? Most of the lock-down tricks are independent of class. All the crusader brings to the table is thicket of blades; a low level stance that anyone who's willing to sink a feat or a little gold can get.

He's not any better suited to tripping than any other warrior.

He's decidedly less capable of ubercharging than a barbarian or a paladin.

He can't face any better than a paladin, since both have cha synergy and both have diplomacy as class skills and that's it.

So far as I can tell, all the crusader has over the paladin is more flavorful in-combat options. That's definitely nice, but it doesn't make the class superior by any stretch.

Well, it's still the superior skill list, 4+Int points vs. 2+Int points, less Charisma/Wisdom dependency (easier to buy higher Int if desired for skills), etc. Basically, Paladin is horrible at skills 'cause casters need certain skills and they don't have the points for Diplomacy and the Synergy-skills while Crusader has no problem with it. So far as diplomancy goes Crusader is always going to be better unless Pally has like 18 Int (and a Pally with 18 Int is a severely use-impaired Pally).

Crusaders also have the Mountain Hammer lockpick (or anything pick, really; being able to ignore any hardness can be mighty handy), charge-without-AoOs, ability to become more or less immortal and heal the party while beating up bad guys, whole White Raven's worth of ways to give allies combat bonuses without consuming big actions and all that. Also, yeah, WRT is kinda Huge and unlike most melees, Pally doesn't really have the feats (especially if taking Serenities, Battle Blessings and stuff, things they need for basic competence) to be taking any ToB maneuvers.

[ArqArturo]

And what, pray tell, is that supposed to accomplish? Hitting someone for mediocre damage?

I can do significant damage.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, it's still the superior skill list, 4+Int points vs. 2+Int points, less Charisma/Wisdom dependency (easier to buy higher Int if desired for skills), etc. Basically, Paladin is horrible at skills 'cause casters need certain skills and they don't have the points for Diplomacy and the Synergy-skills while Crusader has no problem with it. So far as diplomancy goes Crusader is always going to be better unless Pally has like 18 Int (and a Pally with 18 Int is a severely use-impaired Pally).Except none of the synergy skills are on either class's list and int 35 doesn't change the maximum skill rank cap. The paladin is more dependent on his charisma than the crusader so, no the crusader really doesn't win on the diplomacy game.

As for other skills, neither has anything worth writing home about and a paladin doesn't -need- spellcraft or concentration like primary casters since his list is mostly buffs and being hit by a mook isn't nearly as likely when you're in heavy armor. The crusader might edge out the paladin on skills in the overall, but it doesn't really mean much.


Crusaders also have the Mountain Hammer lockpick (or anything pick, really; being able to ignore any hardness can be mighty handy),Adamantine dagger gets the same effect on anything less than itself and a handful of even more expensive or magically reinforced materials. Nevermind that -any- martial character can bust a lock or the door it's set in with a bit of effort. This one always struck me as fishing for something that wasn't really there or grasping at straws.
charge-without-AoOs, If you can charge how often is it going to be necessary to pass more than one enemy, if that. Chargers aim for the nearest destructable target and on a mount with a lance the paladin will -always- do more damage.
ability to become more or less immortalThis is rather a dramatic overstatement. A crusader is tough, but a paladin who's pooled his HP with his mount's is just as tough. Immortal fortitude automatically ends when it's been used to negate death 3 times and there's a save with each of those three that's trivially possible to make unreachably high.
and heal the party while beating up bad guys, This is one of the few points the crusader has in its favor; better in-combat healing. The paladin has him beat in out-of-combat healing though, since he has the native ability to trigger wands of CLW and can avoid wasting partial charges with LoH or save charges altogether with the same.
whole White Raven's worth of ways to give allies combat bonuses without consuming big actions and all that.There's more flash than substance here for the most part. Except for WRT they all grant the ability to perform a fairly minor action; an AoO, a 5ft step, etc. Only when you reach the highest level maneuvers do you start getting things like order forged from chaos and warmaster's charge (which a paladin will still outdo most of the time because it's unusal to have more than one other character that would actually charge alongside him.)
Also, yeah, WRT is kinda HugeIt gets grossly exaggerated. I can't deny that it's got some really solid uses but it's simply -not- spammable and likely won't see more than a single use in any given combat.
and unlike most melees, Pally doesn't really have the feats (especially if taking Serenities, Battle Blessings and stuff, things they need for basic competence) to be taking any ToB maneuvers.

Battleblessing is the only "mandatory" paladin feat. Everything else is a choice and a paladin is a warrior more than a caster so picking up feats that increase his ability to fight after the chain for his primary attack mode are generally the better options.

[Phaederkiel]

White raven tactics can get the guy who can do something significant another turn. It is probably the best maneuver in ToB, and likely one of the best abilities in the game.

I also love the crusaders lvl 1 charging stance. Yes it is not x3 lvl to charge dmg as a paladin can get, but it is still 1xlvl to charge damage for the entire party.



oh, and that glitterdust: a lvl 2 spell at lvl 8 is going to be saved against A LOT.
(I once used a battle blessing / ruby knight windicator Pally / crusader against my party. He had good casting stats, but even casting 4 times hold person in one round did not stop anything.)

[Eldariel]

Except none of the synergy skills are on either class's list and int 35 doesn't change the maximum skill rank cap. The paladin is more dependent on his charisma than the crusader so, no the crusader really doesn't win on the diplomacy game.

Doesn't matter, it's much cheaper for a no-skill-using-abilities class with 4+Int than for a skill-using-abilities class with 2+Int to buy ranks in 4 skills for +6 Diplo. This argument just ignores the reality of the game. Class skills don't even factor into it; Crusader can easily crossclass the 5 ranks for the bonuses if that's really relevant.

In practice, Paladin is hardpressed to even get basic ranks in Diplo if he's interested in using the mount.


As for other skills, neither has anything worth writing home about and a paladin doesn't -need- spellcraft or concentration like primary casters since his list is mostly buffs and being hit by a mook isn't nearly as likely when you're in heavy armor. The crusader might edge out the paladin on skills in the overall, but it doesn't really mean much.

"It doesn't really mean much" is hardly an argument.


Adamantine dagger gets the same effect on anything less than itself and a handful of even more expensive or magically reinforced materials. Nevermind that -any- martial character can bust a lock or the door it's set in with a bit of effort. This one always struck me as fishing for something that wasn't really there or grasping at straws.

It's useful. Situationally so but still; being able to break even adamantine wall with your fist or whatever is handy. Most classes take way longer on low levels; granted, with PA +20 it becomes easy, but try level 5 or something.


If you can charge how often is it going to be necessary to pass more than one enemy, if that. Chargers aim for the nearest destructable target and on a mount with a lance the paladin will -always- do more damage.

The biggest problem is things with longer reach than you. So, anything large/huge with a reach weapon or anything bigger than that, really. If you're enlarged you cut off one category, but still.


This is rather a dramatic overstatement. A crusader is tough, but a paladin who's pooled his HP with his mount's is just as tough. Immortal fortitude automatically ends when it's been used to negate death 3 times and there's a save with each of those three that's trivially possible to make unreachably high.

Eh, depends on the amount of work put into it. If you can autosucceed the Fort-save you can actually negate significant damage. Also, if you e.g. take Elusive Target, suddenly you'll only be looking at DC 30-40 most of the time.


This is one of the few points the crusader has in its favor; better in-combat healing. The paladin has him beat in out-of-combat healing though, since he has the native ability to trigger wands of CLW and can avoid wasting partial charges with LoH or save charges altogether with the same.

Well, there's the Martial Spirit tricks but yeah, by and large this is accurate. Who can't out-of-combat heal tho, seriously?


There's more flash than substance here for the most part. Except for WRT they all grant the ability to perform a fairly minor action; an AoO, a 5ft step, etc. Only when you reach the highest level maneuvers do you start getting things like order forged from chaos and warmaster's charge (which a paladin will still outdo most of the time because it's unusal to have more than one other character that would actually charge alongside him.) It gets grossly exaggerated. I can't deny that it's got some really solid uses but it's simply -not- spammable and likely won't see more than a single use in any given combat.

Eh. Only a single use per encounter is hardly an issue if we're talking high enough optimization that encounter length is under 3 turns outside excessive defenses.


Battleblessing is the only "mandatory" paladin feat. Everything else is a choice and a paladin is a warrior more than a caster so picking up feats that increase his ability to fight after the chain for his primary attack mode are generally the better options.

If you really want to use your abilities, you need to SAD it up. MAD is one of Pally's most massive issues. Also, if you want your Turning to do anything worthwhile, you should probably burn a feat onto it.

[ArcturusV]

Additional Points in the Paladin's Favor: They have Turn Undead, which they don't really want to use for Turning Undead. That would be pathetically bad with how Turning works and the fact that they are already level crippled by it. But there's quite a few useful things out there that are activated by Turn Undead attempts. Everything from the less interesting like Divine Counterspelling (Burn... I think 2 turns to counter a spell?), to the various devotions, possibly Divine Metamagic if you wanted to burn enough Feats to make sure you had your Paladin buffs up all day long.

Course, the other thing I tend to mention is Paladins do get the only weapon in the game that you can't UMD to unlock it's powers. Just gotta be a Paladin. That being the oft forgotten Holy Avenger Longsword. Yeah, it's just a Longsword so it's usually ignored as being a less optimal weapon type (Though I do believe you can Two-Hand a Longsword if you wished). But having free Protection effects/SR/etc just for having a blade on you is always nice. And you get to share it with nearby allies, which isn't terrible at all.

[eggynack]

Battleblessing is the only "mandatory" paladin feat. Everything else is a choice and a paladin is a warrior more than a caster so picking up feats that increase his ability to fight after the chain for his primary attack mode are generally the better options.
So... we're not doing sword of the arcane order here? That seems like a pretty vital component of a tier three paladin. You were talking about using glitterdust, so I assumed that feat was locked in. Can we start doing that thing where we lock in feats, and maybe skills? We could add stats to that too, in order to assess MADness. In any case, I'd like it if the things we discuss had more stickiness to them, so that these builds are less schrodingery, and more real game play.

[Sugashane]

And what, pray tell, is that supposed to accomplish? Hitting someone for mediocre damage?

Add Rhino's Rush, Improved Critical or Keen Enchantment along with the Valorous Enchantment, Leap Attack, Heedless Charge from Shock Trooper, and have an item made with Lion's Pounce or be a level 1 Barbarian of the Lion Spriit Totem variant from Complete Champion (would have to be a Pal of Freedom or an alignment shift to LG).

That equals out to a charge of 300+ total damage without much optimization. Make an item of Wraithstrike for 12,000-18,000 and all of a sudden all melee attacks suddenly only need to hit their Touch AC. I'd say that is far from mediocre. All can be easily done with a Barbarian (LST var)- 1, Pal - 3, Fighter-8+ (for the 3 attacks from BAB).

[eggynack]

Add Rhino's Rush, Improved Critical or Keen Enchantment along with the Valorous Enchantment, Leap Attack, Heedless Charge from Shock Trooper, and have an item made with Lion's Pounce or be a level 1 Barbarian of the Lion Spriit Totem variant from Complete Champion (would have to be a Pal of Freedom or an alignment shift to LG).

That equals out to a charge of 300+ total damage without much optimization. Make an item of Wraithstrike for 12,000-18,000 and all of a sudden all melee attacks suddenly only need to hit their Touch AC. I'd say that is far from mediocre. All can be easily done with a Barbarian (LST var)- 1, Pal - 3, Fighter-8+ (for the 3 attacks from BAB).
That is an incredibly long list of things that are not power attack, divine might, or a falchion. You should probably figure out the amount of damage that comes from divine might, assume that the crusader is doing all of that, and see if the divine might does anything. I mean, it does some, but it doesn't seem like the core of the damage production.

Edit: It probably has more paladiny stuff than I claimed, but it doesn't seem particularly pertinent on a discussion of whether paladins are tier three. High damage does not a tier three make.

[Eldariel]

Add Rhino's Rush, Improved Critical or Keen Enchantment, Leap Attack, Heedless Charge from Shock Trooper, and have an item made with Lion's Pounce or be a level 1 Barbarian of the Lion Spriit Totem variant from Complete Champion (would have to be a Pal of Freedom or an alignment shift to LG).

That equals out to a charge of 300+ total damage without much optimization. Make an item of Wraithstrike for 12,000-18,000 and all of a sudden all melee attacks suddenly only need to hit their Touch AC. I'd say that is far from mediocre. All can be easily done with a Barbarian (LST var)- 1, Pal - 3, Fighter-8+ (for the 3 attacks from BAB).

What does that have to do with Divine Might? I know how to deal damage (leave homebrew items outta it, you can take Sword of the Arcane Order for Wraithstrike). Divine Might is a negligible part of it. You should also add Valorous [UE] weapon. Then there's the Halberd of Vaulting [A&EG] which would double charge damage. And Headlong Rush [Races of Faerun] while at it. Then you could use Battle Jump [Unapproachable East] and Spirited Charge for extra multipliers. Now you're at the basis of the Ubercharger; just add all damage and Strength multipliers you can (and Frenzied Berserker for extra Power Attack multipliers, of course). But the post I responded to contained none of this.

This is without mentioning that class comparisons generally assume single-classed characters since you're, y'know, comparing the class features which is kinda pointless if you just pick a bunch of other class features instead.


I can do significant damage.

Great, great! But what's the point here? How does it relate to this discussion?

[ArcturusV]

*shrug* Back on general utility. I still rather have a Paladin. The Crusader might be more of a combat beast. But I still give the edge to the Paladin for out of Combat use. And it mostly comes down to the fact that they do have Turn Undead for things (Picking up something like Travel Devotion, etc), and some of the Paladin Spells have odd out of combat utility. Like they have everything from creating sustenance for the party (Estanna's Stew for example. Yes, I know it's not too terribly useful as people often point out Survival checks could do the same thing. Then again Knock does the same thing as Open Locks, but Knock still gets mentioned on basic utility for mages), to the usual array of out of combat heals and removals, to things like Zone of Truth and Mark of Justice as Plot Help.

[Flickerdart]

You can crank out higher damage numbers on the paladin, but those crappy spell slots and MADness really cuts into longevity for basically no benefit, as both classes can be fairly easily optimized to one-shot CR+4 foes.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Doesn't matter, it's much cheaper for a no-skill-using-abilities class with 4+Int than for a skill-using-abilities class with 2+Int to buy ranks in 4 skills for +6 Diplo. This argument just ignores the reality of the game. Class skills don't even factor into it; Crusader can easily crossclass the 5 ranks for the bonuses if that's really relevant.This doesn't make sense. The paladin is no more a skill using class than a crusader is. A few ranks in ride is fairly necessary but that's it. Getting the +6 from synergies costs 30 skill points and isn't even achievable before level 7. It also means that the crusader did -nothing- else with his skills up until that point. It's just not a good return on investment compared to just putting ranks in diplomacy and 3 other skills of choice. It's also going to be mitigated to a 4 point or lower advantage by the paladin's superior charisma synergy eventually, if you waste the skill points.

All the crusader has on the paladin in skills is 2 more points per level.


In practice, Paladin is hardpressed to even get basic ranks in Diplo if he's interested in using the mount.That's simply not true. Ride is -almost- mandatory to get the best bang for your paladin buck, but it doesn't need to be maxed out and the paladin is free to choose whatever else he likes from his skill options.




"It doesn't really mean much" is hardly an argument.It is when you realize that both classes have too few skills and too few good skills on their list for this slight edge to be meaningful in the larger game.




It's useful. Situationally so but still; being able to break even adamantine wall with your fist or whatever is handy. Most classes take way longer on low levels; granted, with PA +20 it becomes easy, but try level 5 or something.When it's better than a simple adamantine weapon is too situational for it to really be an advantage. 60gp will get you an adamantine sling bullet to bash locks with and 3k (easily within the reach of a 5th level character) gets your weapon the same benefit for 95% of the walls you're ever likely to swing at. The DR bypass is the gem in this maneuver but that's just more combat stuff.




The biggest problem is things with longer reach than you. So, anything large/huge with a reach weapon or anything bigger than that, really. If you're enlarged you cut off one category, but still. I'm not saying it isn't a nice ability, but it's not some enormous advantage that puts the crusader way ahead of the paladin. It's also a mid-level option with a lot of competition since a crusader only gets 1 maneuver of each level under normal progression.




Eh, depends on the amount of work put into it. If you can autosucceed the Fort-save you can actually negate significant damage. Also, if you e.g. take Elusive Target, suddenly you'll only be looking at DC 30-40 most of the time.Dc 30-40. That's not trivial. 12 base, maybe +5 con and +5 cloak of resistance. That's +22 against dc 30 or -dead- 35% of the time. Most creatures at that level also have multiple attacks. Hit twice that's dead 57.75% of the time. It'll get you through waves of mooks okay, but it doesn't stand up all that well to level appropriate enemies, much less boss monsters.




Well, there's the Martial Spirit tricks but yeah, by and large this is accurate. Who can't out-of-combat heal tho, seriously?Out of combat healing for the party is usually the domain of one or two members of the party that can activate a wand of CLW. The paladin is one of those characters if he's in the party; freeing up resources for one of his allies that might've otherwise had to invest in UMD. (just because it's an awesome skill doesn't mean everyone wants to spend resources on getting it.)




Eh. Only a single use per encounter is hardly an issue if we're talking high enough optimization that encounter length is under 3 turns outside excessive defenses.Even at the optimization level the designers expected normal fights only last about 5 rounds. A crusader will only refresh once in that time and may not get WRT granted a second time before the fight is over even if it lasts for 7 rounds.




If you really want to use your abilities, you need to SAD it up. MAD is one of Pally's most massive issues. Also, if you want your Turning to do anything worthwhile, you should probably burn a feat onto it.The "problem" of MAD'ness gets grossly exagerated. The difference between 20 and 14 in an ability is only 15% on a roll of the d20. SAD is better than MAD but not by nearly the margin people seem to think.


So... we're not doing sword of the arcane order here? That seems like a pretty vital component of a tier three paladin. You were talking about using glitterdust, so I assumed that feat was locked in. Can we start doing that thing where we lock in feats, and maybe skills? We could add stats to that too, in order to assess MADness. In any case, I'd like it if the things we discuss had more stickiness to them, so that these builds are less schrodingery, and more real game play.

SotAO is -one- option. It's definitely something for a high-op paladin but the competition is pretty one sided when comparing a high-op paladin to a crusader. That and mystic fire knight push a paladin toward the top of T3, IMO. Even if you -could- push a crusader to T3, and I'm not convinced you can, you couldn't push it to the top of the tier, period.

[eggynack]

SotAO is -one- option. It's definitely something for a high-op paladin but the competition is pretty one sided when comparing a high-op paladin to a crusader. That and mystic fire knight push a paladin toward the top of T3, IMO. Even if you -could- push a crusader to T3, and I'm not convinced you can, you couldn't push it to the top of the tier, period.
Sure. Or at least sure on the idea of not using it. However, at some point there has to be a choice. Either the build does have SotAO, or it does not. There's no in between in an actual game. Either the build is using it, and we can start doing comparisons involving slow progression wizard casting, or the build is not using it, and talking about slow progression wizard casting is pointless. Having it waffle back and forth isn't conducive to a good discussion. If you decide not to use it, then later decide that you need it, we can address the issue then, and actively decide that the version with SotAO is the most optimal form for the build. If you decide to use it, and decide that other builds provide better value some how, then we can make the active decision to do it that way. The current situation, where the build exists in purgatory, is an untenable one. We don't have to have the whole thing mapped out, but a good number of these choices are going to need to acquire some stickiness if we're going to get anywhere. That's true on the crusader side too, because I'd like to see what that class can really do.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I see what you're getting at now, eggynack. You're talking about building individual paladins and crusaders for side-by-side comparison.

The problem with that is that there's simply no way to guarantee equal degrees of optimization other than getting a neutral third party to build both. Even then there will certainly be accusations of bias or poor character building for one or the other class based primarily on the accuser's preference and/or different understanding of optimization for both classes.

I will -attempt- to make things a bit less "schroedingery" by saying let's drop SotAO and mystic fire knight since they push the paladin way ahead and are both high-op and from a relatively obscure source, even if they are one of the more famous paladin optimization points. I've been mostly ignoring them except for that one comment anyway.

[eggynack]

I see what you're getting at now, eggynack. You're talking about building individual paladins and crusaders for side-by-side comparison.

The problem with that is that there's simply no way to guarantee equal degrees of optimization other than getting a neutral third party to build both. Even then there will certainly be accusations of bias or poor character building for one or the other class based primarily on the accuser's preference and/or different understanding of optimization for both classes.

I will -attempt- to make things a bit less "schroedingery" by saying let's drop SotAO and mystic fire knight since they push the paladin way ahead and are both high-op and from a relatively obscure source, even if they are one of the more famous paladin optimization points. I've been mostly ignoring them except for that one comment anyway.
Well, it's a high optimization situation, so bias isn't a serious problem. If the person in support of the paladin builds the paladin, and the person in support of the crusader builds the crusader, then we'd theoretically get the best builds they could create. I'd figure that even if the build isn't perfectly optimal, any differences between that build and the perfect build could be ironed out over time. If there are accusations of biased build construction, the accuser would presumably have some actual criticism, and we could assess the validity of that criticism afterwards. As is, I think that the problem is less paladin oriented, and more crusader oriented. We can probably safely keep the paladin un-SotAOish as you say, and start on a serious assessment of the crusader's tier status. Some level ranges might be worth assessing as well. As I noted in the other thread, I don't think that the paladin can even begin to pull ahead until he picks up first level spells at level four.

[Sugashane]

That is an incredibly long list of things that are not power attack, divine might, or a falchion. You should probably figure out the amount of damage that comes from divine might, assume that the crusader is doing all of that, and see if the divine might does anything. I mean, it does some, but it doesn't seem like the core of the damage production.

Edit: It probably has more paladiny stuff than I claimed, but it doesn't seem particularly pertinent on a discussion of whether paladins are tier three. High damage does not a tier three make.

I understand it is much more than just the three that were listed. I added to it as the Paladin class has only one thing it can be solid at, damage dealing tank. That is why it is a tier 5 class, it can only have one decent option in an OP game, and it requires a pretty strict list of things to do, and items to buy. I also ignored Divine Might as it would not do much and other feats could add much more to the mix. I didn't see anyone claim they were worthy of a tier three, so I completely agree that they are not.

[Zergrusheddie]

Without Sword of the Arcane Order, the Crusader is better to have in a party. They are pretty nasty combat control guys. Spike Chain + the 5 Foot Shift AoO Stance + Stand Still/Trip does a good job of keeping melee locked down. There is also the "If you hit me, I hit you easier and if you swing at my allies, they are harder to hit or I hit you for free." The Paladin' Immunity to Fear is actually pretty nice, Immunity to Diseases is pretty neat too, but that is about it. They are MAD as hell and don't have much offensive might that can beat Maneuvers.

Adding Sword of the Arcane Order does level it out quite a bit. Glitterdust, Web, Grease, etc help vastly but MAD rears its head again. You need Wisdom for your spells (though you can utterly ignore it), Intelligence for Wizard Spells (which you can't ignore), Strength to attack, Constitution to live, and Charisma is keyed off of a load of abilities you get as well.

There is also the longevity concern. The Crusader can fight all day, no problem. All of his abilities come back. The Paladin is not as lucky in this regard.

So with that single feat, I think the Paladin can become Tier 3 along with the Crusader. Low optimization, Crusader. Medium optimization, maybe about the same. High optimization, the Paladin starts to win as Southern Magician + DMM Persist (Wraithstrike says hello) and other shenanigans open up.

It is kind of shocking how much Wizard spells just get to win.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, it's a high optimization situation, so bias isn't a serious problem. If the person in support of the paladin builds the paladin, and the person in support of the crusader builds the crusader, then we'd theoretically get the best builds they could create. I'd figure that even if the build isn't perfectly optimal, any differences between that build and the perfect build could be ironed out over time. If there are accusations of biased build construction, the accuser would presumably have some actual criticism, and we could assess the validity of that criticism afterwards. As is, I think that the problem is less paladin oriented, and more crusader oriented. We can probably safely keep the paladin un-SotAOish as you say, and start on a serious assessment of the crusader's tier status. Some level ranges might be worth assessing as well. As I noted in the other thread, I don't think that the paladin can even begin to pull ahead until he picks up first level spells at level four.

Now I'm lost again, if we're talking peak optimization then SotAO and MFK absolutely have to be in there. The benefit reaped from taking them is just ridiculously large and ignoring them would be giving the crusader a handicap, since I assume only the d2 crusader trick would be off the table and he'd otherwise have every option he can find available.

I suppose we -could- build a couple of balls-to-the-wall-maximum optimization characters, one paladin and one crusader, to see which is better, but even with a stunted caster level 4th level wizard spells at level 20 are -huge- compared to pretty much everything else in the game that isn't just a better caster. It just feels like a hands-down auto-win for the paladin before we even get started.

[eggynack]

Now I'm lost again, if we're talking peak optimization then SotAO and MFK absolutely have to be in there. The benefit reaped from taking them is just ridiculously large and ignoring them would be giving the crusader a handicap, since I assume only the d2 crusader trick would be off the table and he'd otherwise have every option he can find available.

I suppose we -could- build a couple of balls-to-the-wall-maximum optimization characters, one paladin and one crusader, to see which is better, but even with a stunted caster level 4th level wizard spells at level 20 are -huge- compared to pretty much everything else in the game that isn't just a better caster. It just feels like a hands-down auto-win for the paladin before we even get started.
You might have a point on that count then. I was mostly figuring SotAO at first, which is why I was so confused. The crusader still has a significant edge in the early levels, because SotaO is irrelevant at that point. If we're looking at moderate optimization characters, thing get more complicated. In that case, things should probably be considered on slightly different metrics than we have been. In particular, it might make sense to make the division between in combat and out of combat more absolute, because it feels like there's a lot of talking past each other going on where that's concerned.

The paladin's main contribution on the out of combat front is pretty much just their limited casting, and their minor healing abilities. I don't know if crusaders much better than that though, so that point is pretty up for grabs. However, I don't think that the paladin can really compete that effectively in combat. They can deal a lot of damage, but my understanding is that crusaders produce effects that are useful beyond damage. Their ability to kill stuff seems significantly more versatile than the paladin's charging shtick. Still, I'd like to see how a high optimization crusader build works. Honestly, it's probably not all that different from a middle optimization crusader build, because you're mostly just looking at a variety of things from the same book. I think that the first thing that needs looking at is probably just basic spell and maneuver selection. There's some feat stuff that's different in each case, and turn undead will probably be a factor, but I suspect that that's the big difference between the classes. After that part is figured out, the rest of it should be significantly easier.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Eggs and I did a pretty in-depth comparison of damage capabilities of the two classes in the thread I already linked. The crusader has no advantage at all in straight damage dealing capability after level 6 at what is basically zero optimization.

Having a variety of ways to deliver that damage is nice, but at the end of the day the enemy isn't anymore dead because you hit him with one decisive mountain hammer strike than if you rained blows via full attack.

Hell, we didn't even include any of the paladin's buffing abilities on his side of the equation.

At mid and high optimization the crusader grows only a little while the paladin improves by leaps and bounds.

As for the in-combat Vs out of combat details the crusader doesn't have any out of combat utility other than using the diplomacy skill to about the same level of effectivness the paladin uses and the "Mountain hammer lockpick" and that's about it. Maybe you get away with infinite healing via martial spirit by hitting rocks and trees, but that's not a case of clear-cut, definitely legal RAW.

Even a bog-standard, PHB only paladin has out-of-combat utility in status removing and buffing spells like endure elements, detect poison, and read magic. Even just this little bit puts him miles ahead of the crusader.

[Snowbluff]

Well, crusaders can doing infinite damage, but that's besides the point. An Idiot Crusader takes a bit of building, but it would get infinite turns We can't count that, either. +20/+46d8 can be fun if you are immune to constitution damage.

Paladins can be good, but the number of 'necessary' feats adds up. SotAO, Serenity, Battle Blessing. They can be quite feat starved.

Let's add up the roles.

Damage:
A crusader not allowed to used Divine Surge with be in line with the paladin's damage, IIRC.

Healing: Out of Combat, no one needs a healer. There is a whole handbook filled with reasons why. It would not even be considered a role if it weren't for one thing. In combat, Crusader wins.

Buffing:
Paladin can give immunities to certain attacks, and can give enhancement buffs. Due to it's low spells/day, it in not capable of covering a whole party. I also would like to point out by the time a paladin can cast a spell, it is already made redundant by common items.

White Raven School provides buffs mostly to melee attackers. It's also able to give extra turns for a swift action. Devoted Spirit have Shield Block, which could be considered a small buff.

Kind of apples and oranges here.

[eggynack]

Having a variety of ways to deliver that damage is nice, but at the end of the day the enemy isn't anymore dead because you hit him with one decisive mountain hammer strike than if you rained blows via full attack.

Well, having a variety of ways to deal your damage means that you're more likely to actually deal the damage. If you need to have a direct line of non-difficult terrain between you and your enemy, there are going to be some circumstances where you're not going to deal that damage. If you're riding a horse as your main damage source, and your flight source doesn't include the mount, you're not dealing your full damage to flying enemies. There's something to be said for versatility, and the claim is that this versatility is what gives the crusader his tier status.

Also, unlike nearly every other melee class in the game, the crusader can actually tank. It's not just about thicket of blades, and it's not just about the crusaders ability to not die. Ultimately, it's about having access to both simultaneously. You need to have a way to incentivize people to attack you instead of the party wizard, and you need to have a way to not die when everyone attacks you instead of the party wizard. The crusader gets native access to both of those, and I think that the paladin gets native access to neither. There are combat options that the crusader has, that the paladin doesn't have access to. If it were all about sheer damage potential, barbarians would be at tier one.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, crusaders can doing infinite damage, but that's besides the point. An Idiot Crusader takes a bit of building, but it would get infinite turns We can't count that, either. +20/+46d8 can be fun if you are immune to constitution damage.These are -all- TO. The D2 crusader requires casting ability or outside help, the idiot crusader -requires- a minimal number of levels in crusader, and if you can't take the con damage you can't get the boost from taking the damage you didn't take.


Paladins can be good, but the number of 'necessary' feats adds up. SotAO, Serenity, Battle Blessing. They can be quite feat starved.Of those, only battle blessing has a solid argument for being "necessary." Even then it's not necessary so much as being so obviously good that virtually anyone with the option would take it. Of the other two, pick one. If you're putting SotAO to work serenity is a wasted feat since wizard spells>>paladin spells in all but a very few instances and 14 wis isn't that significant a cost if you decide you need paladin spells to supplement the wizardry at all.


Let's add up the roles.Let's.


Damage:
A crusader not allowed to used Divine Surge with be in line with the paladin's damage, IIRC.We omitted divine surge because it's obviously anomolous next to everything else of its level. In higher levels of optimization the 36 damage it's worth is dwarfed by so much else and it's only once per encounter anyway. Have it if you think it meaningfully changes anything beyond the absolute lowest level of optimization.

(for comparison, the 5th level maneuver elder mountain hammer averages 21 extra damage.)


Healing: Out of Combat, no one needs a healer. There is a whole handbook filled with reasons why. It would not even be considered a role if it weren't for one thing. In combat, Crusader wins.Noone needs a dedicated healer, but -somebody- has to be able to activate the wands that handbook calls for. Why not the paladin?


Buffing:
Paladin can give immunities to certain attacks, and can give enhancement buffs. Due to it's low spells/day, it in not capable of covering a whole party. Wands, scrolls, and pearls of power are all things that can make up the spells per day, which aren't -that- few; peaking at 3 per level, plus bonus spells; one less than a generalist wizard before bonuses and items.


I also would like to point out by the time a paladin can cast a spell, it is already made redundant by common items.What metric are you using to determine commonality? Everything a wizard can do comes in item form, so I don't see that as a particularly compelling argument, anyway.


White Raven School provides small, situational, and extremely temporary buffs mostly to melee attackers. It's also able to give extra turns on one, maybe two, rounds out of a given combat for a swift action.FIFY.
Devoted Spirit have Shield Block, which could be considered a small buff.Of the most situational and possibly redundant kind, sure.


Kind of apples and oranges here.

At bear minimum values, yes. Comparing crusaders and paladins is a bit like apples and oranges. At peak optimization it's like comparing individual apples to watermelon patches.

[Pickford]

In one corner, we have the paladin. He is apparently bound, not only by his paladin code, but also by his status as a tier five class. In the other corner, we have the crusader, who is tier three incarnate. Under ordinary circumstances, these two classes would be unevenly matched, but these are not ordinary circumstances. Instead, we shall consider this battle for supremacy from the perspective of a high optimization scenario. Will the paladin's spell access give him the edge, even early on? Or, will the crusader's mettle let him win out in the end? Perhaps we can settle this, and in so doing decide the ultimate fate of the world. This is a continuation of the argument in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292914), and is formed at the forge of the most heated of discussions. Perhaps, at the end of the day, we can find solace in our increased understanding of optimization. Perhaps we will all be destroyed utterly. Only time will tell.

Can you also link the tier system? It's confusing why the Paladin is tier 5 and the Crusader tier 3 when the Paladin has more class skills, and more useful class skills. (i.e. Heal, Handle Animal, Sense Motive, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), all skills the crusader lacks). The paladin, by definition, will have more out of combat versatility/utility.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, having a variety of ways to deal your damage means that you're more likely to actually deal the damage. If you need to have a direct line of non-difficult terrain between you and your enemy, there are going to be some circumstances where you're not going to deal that damage. If you're riding a horse as your main damage source, and your flight source doesn't include the mount, you're not dealing your full damage to flying enemies. There's something to be said for versatility, and the claim is that this versatility is what gives the crusader his tier status.

Also, unlike nearly every other melee class in the game, the crusader can actually tank. It's not just about thicket of blades, and it's not just about the crusaders ability to not die. Ultimately, it's about having access to both simultaneously. You need to have a way to incentivize people to attack you instead of the party wizard, and you need to have a way to not die when everyone attacks you instead of the party wizard. The crusader gets native access to both of those, and I think that the paladin gets native access to neither. There are combat options that the crusader has, that the paladin doesn't have access to. If it were all about sheer damage potential, barbarians would be at tier one.

Why are you assuming I'm talking about charging? I'm not. Bog-standard full-attacks provide the damage parity I'm talking about. In charging the paladin wins quite handily the damage game.

The mount, and/or at least one of its alternatives, gives the paladin just as much staying power.

As for incentivizing enemies attacking you over another target, only the knight class has mechanics for that. The crusader has mechanics that can -somewhat- do so, but unless they're paired with combat reflexes and stand still he'll be ignored just as readily as any other martial character.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Can you also link the tier system? It's confusing why the Paladin is tier 5 and the Crusader tier 3 when the Paladin has more class skills, and more useful class skills. (i.e. Heal, Handle Animal, Sense Motive, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), all skills the crusader lacks). The paladin, by definition, will have more out of combat versatility/utility.

The crusader was added to the tier list too early in its life and with too little objective review to be properly placed. Same goes for the warblade. By the definitions for why each class is in its tier they should both be tier 4.

Though I honestly don't know why you, of all people, would even ask given that you're known to believe the tier system is a fallacy?

[eggynack]

Can you also link the tier system? It's confusing why the Paladin is tier 5 and the Crusader tier 3 when the Paladin has more class skills, and more useful class skills. (i.e. Heal, Handle Animal, Sense Motive, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), all skills the crusader lacks). The paladin, by definition, will have more out of combat versatility/utility.
Are you talking about why each class is in its tier? (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0) I'm pretty sure that's the only resource for tier reasoning. If that's not what you're looking for, here's the regular tier system (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293), I guess. Let it guide you to a world of wonder.

Why are you assuming I'm talking about charging? I'm not. Bog-standard full-attacks provide the damage parity I'm talking about. In charging the paladin wins quite handily the damage game.

The mount, and/or at least one of its alternatives, gives the paladin just as much staying power.

As for incentivizing enemies attacking you over another target, only the knight class has mechanics for that. The crusader has mechanics that can -somewhat- do so, but unless they're paired with combat reflexes and stand still he'll be ignored just as readily as any other martial character.
Well, because if you're just full attacking, that's even less reliable than charging. You have to be standing next to your opponent for a whole turn, without him just moving away the next turn. I'm really not talking about damage parity here. I'm talking about damage reliability, and that's a far more important topic for tier listing. If you can deal infinite damage, but only when you're fighting gnolls, that's less good than being able to deal a lot of damage to everyone. This is obviously an exaggerated example, but that's the general thing I'm discussing. The fact that a lot of crusader stuff keys off of a standard action is really important, and crusaders can pick up thicket of blades five levels earlier than paladins can. I don't even think that paladins give anything to incentivize that style of combat, so it's rather unusual for them to go even that far in the name of battlefield control.

[Snowbluff]

These are -all- TO. The D2 crusader requires casting ability or outside help, the idiot crusader -requires- a minimal number of levels in crusader, and if you can't take the con damage you can't get the boost from taking the damage you didn't take.
You are ignoring the key strength of the Crusader. As an Initiator, it can multiclass with less losses compared to a caster. Ignoring this in OP is like ignoring your name is Kelp. This is working under the assumption that something with more Crusader levels than anything else is still a crusader. Which it is.

Immunity isn't very well defined. Whether or not you take the damage and it does nothing, or don't take the damage would mean a lot. I'll get back to you on this one.

Digging through the rules, it turns out that ability damage manuevers can crit for double effect. Neat o.


Of those, only battle blessing has a solid argument for being "necessary." Even then it's not necessary so much as being so obviously good that virtually anyone with the option would take it. Of the other two, pick one. If you're putting SotAO to work serenity is a wasted feat since wizard spells>>paladin spells in all but a very few instances and 14 wis isn't that significant a cost if you decide you need paladin spells to supplement the wizardry at all. Well, a paladin loses out when he has a 14 wis and int, but also has a good cha (your idea).



We omitted divine surge because it's obviously anomolous next to everything else of its level. In higher levels of optimization the 36 damage it's worth is dwarfed by so much else and it's only once per encounter anyway. Have it if you think it meaningfully changes anything beyond the absolute lowest level of optimization.
(for comparison, the 5th level maneuver elder mountain hammer averages 21 extra damage.) Power attack is anomalous to damage output compared to other feats, and is removed. Suddenly, I can't fathom a paladin being better at charging. If that was ever the case, of course.

Can you name a meaningful benefit a crusader can not use?


Noone needs a dedicated healer, but -somebody- has to be able to activate the wands that handbook calls for. Why not the paladin? Because there is a better option. Like anyone else in the party.



Wands, scrolls, and pearls of power are all things that can make up the spells per day, which aren't -that- few; peaking at 3 per level, plus bonus spells; one less than a generalist wizard before bonuses and items.

What metric are you using to determine commonality? Everything a wizard can do comes in item form, so I don't see that as a particularly compelling argument, anyway.
Except when you include items, everything a paladin can do is cheaper than getting everything a crusader can do, if you can do it at all.

That many spells per day in those slots is actually less than a 10th level wizard. The issues that you can't make Wands above 4th level, which last a long time, and before that you cannot make eternal wands above 3rd, which last eternally. Until level 15 (Crazy late) the paladin is being outdone by anyone who brought a couple of wands. With only 3 spell/day, you could have the same variety of spells a prepped paladin would with your set of wands. The cost isn't that much at the levels you wish to make paladin obsolete via wands, if your gear isn't doing so already.


FIFY.

How rude. :smallannoyed:

A whole turn is better than what a paladin can do. Without the ability to anything a crusader can not in that turn is salt on the wound.

Paladin is described as situational in all things.


At bear minimum values, yes. Comparing crusaders and paladins is a bit like apples and oranges. At peak optimization, P is a for paladin and pathetic. Butchered that for you.

Except for everything a paladin learns is covered in excess skill points.

[Mithril Leaf]

I'd just like to point out that healing belts are cheaper than wands of Cure Light Wounds after 11 days and also usable by anyone.

[eggynack]

I'd just like to point out that healing belts are cheaper than wands of Cure Light Wounds after 11 days and also usable by anyone.
This is very much true. I'd figure that any crusader trying to emulate paladin healing (Why? If he's healing up in combat, he doesn't need to heal after combat. Whatever.) the best way would be healing belts. It's probably the best way to model consistent healing in the game.,

[Kelb_Panthera]

You are ignoring the key strength of the Crusader. As an Initiator, it can multiclass with less losses compared to a caster. Ignoring this in OP is like ignoring your name is Kelp. This is working under the assumption that something with more Crusader levels than anything else is still a crusader. Which it is.If we open up the multiclassing can of worms then we're no longer comparing the two classes but simply our relative abilities to build optimized characters. A paladin 4/crusader 1/ RKV 10/ X 5 where X is either a ToB prestige class or a caster prestige class will be strictly superior to both the crusader and the paladin while simultaneously doing both of their schticks as well or better than either of them. Multiclassing renders the whole discussion moot.


Immunity isn't very well defined. Whether or not you take the damage and it does nothing, or don't take the damage would mean a lot. I'll get back to you on this one.That's not how damage works. You either take it or you don't. If you take it and quickly regenerate it, it can still kill you. If it can't kill you then you're not actually taking the damage.


Digging through the rules, it turns out that ability damage manuevers can crit for double effect. Neat o.Crits don't mean much unless you build for getting them, an odd thing for either class in this comparison to do.

Well, a paladin loses out when he has a 14 wis and int, but also has a good cha (your idea).Putting words in my mouth again. Getting a 14 in wisdom can be as simple as spending 16k on a headband -if- you really care when you have wizard spells. That's a mighty big "if." Charisma, as potential fuel for DMM does become just a bit more important than it normally is.


Power attack is anomalous to damage output compared to other feats, and is removed. Suddenly, I can't fathom a paladin being better at charging. If that was ever the case, of course.Kind of a moot point since the effects of power attack were included in that previous discussion already and not really that big a problem. Rhino's rush, a lance, and a valorous weapon are already getting 4X normal damage on the charge even before PA, more than enough to match any crusader damage boosting maneuver.


Can you name a meaningful benefit a crusader can not use?I don't follow.

Because there is a better option. Like anyone else in the party.Either you're assuming someone else that can use the wand is present, a bold assumption that doesn't change the fact the crusader -can't- or you're assuming that someone in the party has UMD which isn't any better an assumption and still has less than nothing to do with comparing the two classes in question.



Except when you include items, everything a paladin can do is cheaper than getting everything a crusader can do, if you can do it at all.And this is just demonstrably false. 12 scholar crowns of the white raven (as many as a character can wear unless you're uncomfortable with re-slotting items) costs 180k. Enough to buy 8 4th level wands with a bit left over or 16 3rd level wands exactly. Split the difference with 8 third level and 4 fourth level wands and you're not even covering everything the paladin can cast just out of the PHB and every one of those that doesn't have at least a 1/min/rnd duration takes effectively a full-round to use as long as you don't want to stow them after you use them.

This is a -terrible- investment for both classes, just financially, but it's easily a -worse- investment for the crusader because his will all eventually get used up, it's takes more actions to use by a dramatic margin, and it requires burning character resources on getting UMD to a useable level.


That many spells per day in those slots is actually less than a 10th level wizard. The issues that you can't make Wands above 4th level, which last a long time, and before that you cannot make eternal wands above 3rd, which last eternally. Until level 15 (Crazy late) the paladin is being outdone by anyone who brought a couple of wands. With only 3 spell/day, you could have the same variety of spells a prepped paladin would with your set of wands. The cost isn't that much at the levels you wish to make paladin obsolete via wands, if your gear isn't doing so already.More and more I wonder if you have -any- familiarity with the paladin's spell list. I know you don't understand eternal wands because they can only be made with arcane spells. This argument is even more pointless when you consider that you can get -all- the abilities -any- spellcaster gets in item form. That doesn't make the sorcerer, wizard, bard, or cleric obsolete. Why does it only nullify the paladin?


How rude. :smallannoyed:You give what you get, but I wasn't being intentionally rude there. Those quick edits to your statement got my point accross much more efficiently than typing another sentence or paragraph would have.


A whole turn is better than what a paladin can do. It's once, maybe twice in a given fight. A paladin with a mount gets two sets of actions on -every- turn. Paladin spells channeled into the mount through share spells can make that extra set plenty valuable up until -very- late in the game and even at 20 they're not worthless and that's without even considering mounts from the expanded list in the DMG and elsewhere.


Without the ability to anything a crusader can not in that turn is salt on the wound.Salt on a scratch doesn't hurt much.


Paladin is described as situational in all things.Unlike the crusader, the paladin has a number of buffs that are -always- useful and that's just on his native list before even considering SotAO. They also last the entire battle and sometime 2 or more battles or even the entire day, depending on the buff in question.

Butchered that for you.Yes, yes, eye for an eye. Can we maybe avoid escalating to flaming eachother now?


Except for everything a paladin learns is covered in excess skill points.

What? I'm assuming this has something to do with the notion of using the 2 more skill points per level that a crusader gets on UMD? Don't forget that a natural 1 on a UMD check means you can't use that device again that day if it's a failure and that every failure is a wasted action. The latter portion of the previous sentence isn't important for medium and long duration buffs, but it'll really hurt on the buffs for just before or during the first round(s) of combat.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Are you talking about why each class is in its tier? (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0) I'm pretty sure that's the only resource for tier reasoning. If that's not what you're looking for, here's the regular tier system (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293), I guess. Let it guide you to a world of wonder.

Well, because if you're just full attacking, that's even less reliable than charging. You have to be standing next to your opponent for a whole turn, without him just moving away the next turn. I'm really not talking about damage parity here. I'm talking about damage reliability, and that's a far more important topic for tier listing. If you can deal infinite damage, but only when you're fighting gnolls, that's less good than being able to deal a lot of damage to everyone. This is obviously an exaggerated example, but that's the general thing I'm discussing. The fact that a lot of crusader stuff keys off of a standard action is really important, and crusaders can pick up thicket of blades five levels earlier than paladins can. I don't even think that paladins give anything to incentivize that style of combat, so it's rather unusual for them to go even that far in the name of battlefield control.

The things that don't want to trade full attacks with a martial character aren't going to make themselves easy to get to for either class and will likely have ways of mitigating or even ignoring basic physical attacks. For these creatures the paladin has spellcasting, albeit less than stellar casting, but the crusader just has to hope his attacks reach the enemy anyway.

For creatures that -do- want to stand and trade blows the paladin can charge in on the first round, then full attack each subsequent round while the crusader can do the same or use maneuvers for a roughly equal effect.

@healing belts:

those have always struck me as more supplementary than as an outright replacement to a wand. I mean it's only 6d8 (average 27) hp's a day.

[eggynack]

We don't have to be super scientific about everything we're analyzing here, but I'd take it as a kindness if we had some structure. What levels are we talking about? What maneuvers is the crusader actually going to take, and what spells will the paladin prepare? What is does the normal stat point, feat, and skill assignment look like on each class? We've been spending a good amount of time talking about these classes, but even if the analysis turns out a bit biased and imperfect, it would be better than the non-analysis we're doing now. As is, this comparison is looking more and more like a slap fight, with one person talking about a specific aspect of their favored class, and the other person constructing a specific way their class could accomplish that goal with optimization.

It doesn't tell us anything about the game, because in reality crusaders don't spend all of their time and effort purchasing enough healing belts to beat lay on hands, and enough wands that they can cast like a paladin. Seriously, who would actually want to get theoretical eternal paladin wands when you could get actual eternal wizard wands? What crusader would spend time and effort on out of combat healing, when he can already heal himself in combat? It's not a perfect solution, but a crusader isn't going to push their heart and soul into this issue. D&D isn't a game of who can approximate another class with wealth by level the best. It's a helpful metric to test the value of a given class feature, but crusaders don't spend their nights dreaming of the paladin life.

What does a crusader actually do? How do those things they can do effect the things they can accomplish? That's what we need to answer, and we presumably need to answer the same questions for a paladin. It might be a difficult task, and some of the later steps involving testing the builds could prove problematic, but we need something to work off of here. If a build is so outside the norm that there appears to be bias, then someone on the other side can just say something, and we can all bask in our combined friendliness and research oriented nature. I think that we can get this to work, if we actually start putting these ideas onto a semi-amorphous character, but the way we're approaching the problem now isn't working. Our goal might meet with doom and destruction, and the entire board may be ripped asunder in the wake of our futile efforts, but those things probably won't happen, and we won't know the results until we actually try. :smallsmile:

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm too tired right now (it's 5am here and I need to go to bed) but later today I suppose I could roll out a paladin turned up to 11 at a couple of points in his career. I doubt it'll prove anything except that I know how to optimize a paladin, but whatever.

[eggynack]

The things that don't want to trade full attacks with a martial character aren't going to make themselves easy to get to for either class and will likely have ways of mitigating or even ignoring basic physical attacks. For these creatures the paladin has spellcasting, albeit less than stellar casting, but the crusader just has to hope his attacks reach the enemy anyway.
I don't think that this is necessarily true. Any given character is far more likely to land a standard attack than a full attack. For a paladin, you basically have to spend a turn approaching, and another turn attacking. The crusader can get his hits in when he approaches, and that can make all the difference. I'm not suggesting a PvP arena setting, but a crusader actually can gain an advantage out of kiting a paladin, and other enemies might be able to as well.



those have always struck me as more supplementary than as an outright replacement to a wand. I mean it's only 6d8 (average 27) hp's a day.
Well, if we're talking straight up out of combat healing, you're probably right. However, if we're trying to approximate the constant use/day healing of a paladin, you need something constant that can be used/day. A wand of cure light wounds (or lesser vigor, actually) also faces the obvious downside of requiring cross class ranks in UMD, so if the build can avoid that, all the better. Any discussion of a wand of cure light wounds letting you become a paladin will inevitably fall apart when the question is raised of how long you are playing this character. The price goes up for larger numbers, and it's a variable we just can't account for, so it might be worth sidestepping the issue entirely.

[eggynack]

I'm too tired right now (it's 5am here and I need to go to bed) but later today I suppose I could roll out a paladin turned up to 11 at a couple of points in his career. I doubt it'll prove anything except that I know how to optimize a paladin, but whatever.
Sounds neat. Honestly, I'm more interested in seeing a crusader, because paladins get argued about all the time, and it generates a decent blueprint for how they operate. Crusaders don't come up nearly as much, so I don't know nearly as much about how they work. Still, it would be pretty useful to know when and how the paladin is achieving specific damage figures, so that the consistency of that damage can be assessed. Just having something to look at and compare to can make all the difference.

[Eldariel]

This doesn't make sense. The paladin is no more a skill using class than a crusader is. A few ranks in ride is fairly necessary but that's it. Getting the +6 from synergies costs 30 skill points and isn't even achievable before level 7. It also means that the crusader did -nothing- else with his skills up until that point. It's just not a good return on investment compared to just putting ranks in diplomacy and 3 other skills of choice. It's also going to be mitigated to a 4 point or lower advantage by the paladin's superior charisma synergy eventually, if you waste the skill points.

All the crusader has on the paladin in skills is 2 more points per level.

"All" Crusader has is twice as much skillpoints? Well, yeah, that's kinda good enough.


It is when you realize that both classes have too few skills and too few good skills on their list for this slight edge to be meaningful in the larger game.

Eh, Crusader-list is fine. It's not overtly versatile but it does its job. Pally list is great but he doesn't have the points to truly take an advantage of it. Sure, neither of them has most of the gamebreaker skills but both have Diplomacy far as that goes.


When it's better than a simple adamantine weapon is too situational for it to really be an advantage. 60gp will get you an adamantine sling bullet to bash locks with and 3k (easily within the reach of a 5th level character) gets your weapon the same benefit for 95% of the walls you're ever likely to swing at. The DR bypass is the gem in this maneuver but that's just more combat stuff.

Sling Bullet does like no damage compared to the two-handed Power Attackable weapon so anyone with Mountain Hammer is gonna be massively faster.


Dc 30-40. That's not trivial. 12 base, maybe +5 con and +5 cloak of resistance. That's +22 against dc 30 or -dead- 35% of the time. Most creatures at that level also have multiple attacks. Hit twice that's dead 57.75% of the time. It'll get you through waves of mooks okay, but it doesn't stand up all that well to level appropriate enemies, much less boss monsters.

But that's without optimizing for it. If we use e.g. Empyreal Armor or Resilient Armor and Standard of Heroism we can already hit +29. You could use purchased casting(s) of PAO or whatever to stack up massive Constitution, you could use the various bodyshifting shenanigans, you could stack stats or whatever. Hell, while it's usually not applicable to class comparisons, to this particular end it's worth noting that multiclassing a bunch of High Fort classes works too (relevant because not a class feature but a simple feature of the multiclass system). If you want to hit 40 Con, +39 Fort or whatever, you will.


Even at the optimization level the designers expected normal fights only last about 5 rounds. A crusader will only refresh once in that time and may not get WRT granted a second time before the fight is over even if it lasts for 7 rounds.

If a fight lasts for 2-3 rounds, Crusader effectively doubled someone's output. He doesn't need to use it twice since the fights won't take long enough for that to matter.


The "problem" of MAD'ness gets grossly exagerated. The difference between 20 and 14 in an ability is only 15% on a roll of the d20. SAD is better than MAD but not by nearly the margin people seem to think.

...yeah, 'cause 15% isn't a big deal or anything. In d20 a single die roll can kill an enemy or a PC and if you have a 15% disadvantage on every roll of one type, that's on average 7 rolls and an extra fail. That adds up fast over the course of an adventuring career, let alone with multiple attacks. Even 5% is a huge deal for precisely this reason; every d20 roll is lethal.

[Pickford]

The crusader was added to the tier list too early in its life and with too little objective review to be properly placed. Same goes for the warblade. By the definitions for why each class is in its tier they should both be tier 4.

Though I honestly don't know why you, of all people, would even ask given that you're known to believe the tier system is a fallacy?

One can discuss the internal logic of a system and still disagree with it.

[Gwendol]

Just use the "a-game paladin" build presented on the wizards forum and put forth a crusader to match. I won't be holding my breath.

[georgie_leech]

In regards to full attacks, couldn't a paladin use Travel Devotion to get his movement in? It's not like he'd use his Turn Undead to actually turn undead.

[Flickerdart]

In regards to full attacks, couldn't a paladin use Travel Devotion to get his movement in? It's not like he'd use his Turn Undead to actually turn undead.
Yes, but it can't be used on the first round of combat (since it takes a swift action to activate the Devotion to start with, which allows you to start spending swifts to move) and takes up your swift action (which you might need for some cool Battle Blessing'd spells). It's definitely a solution, but it's not without its downsides.

[Gwendol]

In defence of the crusader it will be typically be stronger at lower levels, and is not a bad charger (non-mounted) thanks to maneuvers like battle leaders charge.

[jedipilot24]

I know people are going to want to crucify me for this, crusader's not T3. It's T4.

It's good at one thing, smashing face, and not particularly relevant when that one thing is not called for. Even his buffing ability from white raven doesn't really change this. Warblade should be right there in T4 with it for that matter. Swordsage is the only one correctly placed at T3.

Okay, I'll take a whack at it.
Here's the explanation for why they are placed in T3:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269440

[Snowbluff]

Kelb, it's already a flame war. Nothing you have to say bears any weight.

Paladin's are great at charging, but only using equipment that a crusader can buy as well. They don't have the spell slots per day to do more damage on a charge per day that a crusader without using wands, which would mean the crusader could access the wands as well. The extra damage on the charge has no good affect on their meager utility, and actually hampers it by eating spell slots. This embodies the entire failure of your argument.

Yes, but it can't be used on the first round of combat (since it takes a swift action to activate the Devotion to start with, which allows you to start spending swifts to move) and takes up your swift action (which you might need for some cool Battle Blessing'd spells). It's definitely a solution, but it's not without its downsides. My thoughts exactly. Still, it's damn good.


In defence of the crusader it will be typically be stronger at lower levels, and is not a bad charger (non-mounted) thanks to maneuvers like battle leaders charge.
Actually due to the weirdness of the mounted combat rules, you might be able to do a mounted initiator. The mount charging prohibits you from making more than a single attack, but it's unclear if you have to take the attack action.

Side note, a Crusader can take a feat to recover WRT a third time in a fight, easily doubling the effectiveness of another member.

[Nightraiderx]

I would say a crusader with a fey-crafted spiked chain and a shield can take advantage of his AoO stances early game. Late game it doesn't become as useful, but the sader can pull off some nice things with a decently pumped dex as far as BCC goes. The sader is just better at in-combat teamwork, especially for rogues and other fighter types to take advantage of his AoO dousing. Even the caster can benefit from getting away from a smart enemy through this.
If a sader wants to be mounted, wild cohort could be really useful for him, and could always benefit from the sader's white raven abilities.

I'm looking at Clarion commander and with Wild cohort, it could be a nice use of the crusaders mounted actions in game. Or maybe using some binding feats to get you a mount. just throwing stuff out there.

[Snowbluff]

I wouldn't go as far as to say the crusader is using a cohort feat unless the paladin is useless material from outside the basic book.

EDIT: Clarion Commander is nice. It provides some debuffs independent of the crusader's maves, but it you have to decide between that or shock trooper for your sixth level character feat.

Finally, sader seems to be slang for a prideful but loyal bro. It describes the class very well. :smallcool:

[Gwendol]

Still no build in sight I see?

[Snowbluff]

Why would we need one? The hypothetical capabilities are quite clear for crusader. The class isn't really done justice with an individual build or as an individual, due to the inclusive and supportive nature of its mechanics.

I also have no idea what kind of build level is wanted. You could just blow as many resources (Feats, Gold, Skills) as the paladin does on it's specific mechanics on UMD based abilities (A feat, eternal wands of the better spells) and Wild Cohort and pretty much get the paladin with maneuvers.

After that the other issue is that either class could just be made into an ubercharger and make everything die in a singular hit.

[Squirrel_Dude]

If we're going to have some kind of standard build, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a set stat array that people cane work off of.

I wonder if the dice roller works on this forum too. Might as well find out now. So, let's see what stats each character gets to have (pending a reroll)

4d6b3
4d6b3
4d6b3
4d6b3
4d6b3
4d6b3

*Boooo! That would be so much fun if it did, though. I'll go roll some dice, tell you the results and encourage you guys to use them because that is more fun than a point buy.

4d6 drop lowest
Roll 1: 5,5,2,2 : 12
Roll 2: 5,4,1,1 : 10
Roll 3: 6,5,5,5 : 16
Roll 4: 6,5,5,1 : 16
Roll 5: 5,4,4,3 : 13
Roll 6: 4,4,3,1 : 11

There you go. 12, 10, 16, 16, 13, 11. You could also be boring and just use the elite array.

[Gwendol]

I've proposed a fairly detailed build, and I'm prepared to add wizard spells in order to avoid any case of schroedinger's paladin. I'm looking to see a crusader 20, level by level with feat and maneuver choices (at least the important ones). Then it's fairly easy to see what the capabilities are level by level.

[Snowbluff]

Okay. I'd like to see the paladin and wizard spells. SotAO pretty much makes any source save third party and dragon free game, so I'll have to do some digging to make it representative to that amount of material. The feat also means you are spending gold on spells as well.

@squirrelfacedude that array is SOOOO favoring the crusader. :smalltongue:

EDIT: Could you post/link the A Game Pally? I seem to have lost it. ^^'

[eggynack]

We could also do something like 25 or 32 point buy. Those are pretty standard in challenge settings. For level ranges, I'd figure that you'd want one from each paladin spell level, because those are the points where a theoretical power inflection is likely to happen. It's true that a crusader can't use his whole shtick in a vacuum, which might favor the paladin, but I'm not even sure that we're necessarily running combats here. The way I figure it, the goal is versatility, because that's what the tier system is trying to measure.

You want a build that can go through a trap filled dragon cave before fighting the dragon within, that can gain the trust of the leader of a slave resistance, and that can help a city prepare for war against a massive orc army. Those are the ones that are listed on the tier system itself, but we could presumably come up with our own. Once we have set builds, if we want we can evaluate each class' theoretical success against these and other challenges. If we figure out a practical way to do it, which I honestly doubt, we can evaluate each class' actual success. We can't do that without actual builds though, because otherwise the results are meaningless. We need to see the extent to which these classes can take on all challenges with a single build.

[Squirrel_Dude]

@squirrelfacedude that array is SOOOO favoring the crusader. :smalltongue:' Yeah well, most arrays favor classes that aren't MAD. That's my biggest problem with classes that are MAD. As someone who both likes martial classes and prefers random stat generation (semi random, I like dice pool the most) to point buy, I hate how if I get bad rolls I have to just throw a martial character off the table if I want to be effective.

"Looks like I got a 15, 14, 12, 10, 8, and 7. Time to be a wizard."


That's part of the reason I want the classes starting arrays to be the same. If you're picking between which class is able to do the most with the tools they can, they should also start at the same place.

[eggynack]

That's part of the reason I want the classes starting arrays to be the same. If you're picking between which class is able to do the most with the tools they can, they should also start at the same place.
I don't see why that can't be accomplished with a point buy of some kind. Randomly rolled stats are perfectly representative of the situation they're modelling, but they're fundamentally only representative of that one situation. Just as a hypothetical, if one quarter of rolled stat makeups were good for paladins, and three fourths were good for crusaders, there's a solid 25% chance that the results would be quite misleading. Point buy only really tells us about that one point buy, but that feels like a far broader set of circumstances than a particular set of rolls. I mean, maybe 25 is beneficial for crusaders, and 32 is beneficial for paladins, but it's probably not as big of a difference as you could get on certain rolled stats. Those are my thoughts on it, anyways.

[Eldariel]

Just use 32pb like all normal people...

[eggynack]

Just use 32pb like all normal people...
It's a reasonable number, though the last time I tossed it out in a similar context, folks told be that 25 was the norm. I've gotta figure that there's not much harm in offering both options. In any case, one number is as good as another, and unless we inexplicably want to make this take twice as long in the name of varying point buy, we need to pick one. 32 is fine with me. It probably favors the paladin a bit in comparison to 25, but it shouldn't be a big deal. I like slightly higher stats anyway. It lets you have a stat arrangement that might be able to pick a tertiary stat, and that creates some differentiation. So, 32 it is, unless there are any objections.

[Gwendol]

No objections from my end. Here's the link I mentioned:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29110689

[eggynack]

No objections from my end. Here's the link I mentioned:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29110689
That looks around what I would expect. Honestly, just giving it a reasonable overview, it basically just looks like a bard. There are some differences, definitely, and there might be some advantage on either side, but still, bard. I'm also doubtful of the battle blessing+ SotAO thing. It's not a key component of the build, so it's not a big deal, but it's worth discussing. In any case, through my mystical powers of eyeballing magic, bards are tier three, so I'd have to figure that this is as well. It adds some credence to the idea of paladins being as good as a crusader, though I don't know if it necessarily rockets up to the top of tier three (Whatever that means) as Kelb claims. Still, I'd like to have a look at the paladin without SotAO, because Kelb also claims that crusader power levels are reachable, and indeed surpassable, without it. It's not a necessary thing by any means, but it's an interesting thing by some means. As is, we're still crusaderless, and I think that's the actual key point of this discussion. If crusaders might be tier four, that's a thing worth talking about. I honestly have my doubts, but if it's true then it's true, and that'd probably end the argument right there. Theoretically, were that the case, we probably wouldn't even need to have a paladin build for this. It's a thing worth considering for that reason.

[Gwendol]

I think you're right and that it's worth exploring other paladin builds for the completeness of the analysis. At least one should keep the mount.

[Chronos]

For the record, the Elite Array, 4d6 drop lowest, and 25 point buy are all roughly equivalent. So if 4d6 drop lowest or elite are the standards you're comparing to, 32 PB is pretty generous.

[eggynack]

For the record, the Elite Array, 4d6 drop lowest, and 25 point buy are all roughly equivalent. So if 4d6 drop lowest or elite are the standards you're comparing to, 32 PB is pretty generous.
You have a point full of validity and logic, but there's gotta come some point here where we pick one. I guess we could switch over, but we're talking about some relatively marginal effects here. On the other hand, if we split the difference and went with 28, Gwendol's linked build could be used as written. It's a neat benefit to an arbitrary third option that's worth consideration. However, if discussions of stat generation end up going on for a whole other page, the headache I already have will be retroactively attributed to the argument. I'm just letting you know in advance. :smallbiggrin:

[Eldariel]

Hm, the A-Game Paladin has the problem of not being able to cast Pally spells at all due to not having the prerequisite Wisdom (need 11 Wisdom for level 1 Pally spells, Aeshkrau Illumian doesn't change that). Given the intent seems to be having access to both lists, that warrants addressing. Shouldn't be too hard tho; just divert some resources into a Wis +4 item and it's solved.

Aside from that, props to Stormwind; Aeshkrau solves the usual "I don't have enough slots"-problem making the magic actually a boon. Early levels are a pain for that build but once it hits ~11, magic and Bardic Music begins fixing most of that. That's definitely not an early bloomer though. It does work very well level 20, and should be comparable to a well-built Crusader. Indeed, the closest parallel is the Song of the White Raven Bardsader.


I'm not sure that's a reasonable general Paladin due to being race-locked though. A general build should be able to stand on its own with just the class abilities, rather than relying on racial bonuses.

[Spuddles]

A challenger appears!

Kobold paladin wins :smallcool:


No no, not by using Pazuzu and Manipulate Form. By abusing Dragonwrought.

Grab Sword of the Arcane Order and Improved Spellcasting Capacity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#improvedSpellCapacity), which you qualify for at level 14, thanks to being a dragon.

Nothing in ToB, save maybe infinite actions via an idiot crusader and WRT, beats 9 levels of arcane spells.

Kobold web enhancement gives kobolds 3 MWP feats, which can get chaos shuffled out for 3 of those Improved Spell Capacities.

Basically, if you build your paladin to be a weak gish for the first 4 levels and then go through an arcane apotheosis into full blown wizard at 14, PALADIN WINS.

[Gwendol]

These are the easy wins though, let's see what a paladin without wizard spells can do compared with a crusader (a build still not presented).

[Flickerdart]

A challenger appears!

Kobold paladin wins :smallcool:


No no, not by using Pazuzu and Manipulate Form. By abusing Dragonwrought.

Grab Sword of the Arcane Order and Improved Spellcasting Capacity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#improvedSpellCapacity), which you qualify for at level 14, thanks to being a dragon.

Nothing in ToB, save maybe infinite actions via an idiot crusader and WRT, beats 9 levels of arcane spells.

Kobold web enhancement gives kobolds 3 MWP feats, which can get chaos shuffled out for 3 of those Improved Spell Capacities.

Basically, if you build your paladin to be a weak gish for the first 4 levels and then go through an arcane apotheosis into full blown wizard at 14, PALADIN WINS.
This is a kobold optimization trick, not a paladin optimization trick, and relies on Dragonwrought kobolds being true dragons, which I don't think is a debate anyone wants to have all over again.

[Snowbluff]

Spuddles, Kobolds aren't true dragons. :smallsigh:


I hate how if I get bad rolls I have to just throw a martial character off the table if I want to be effective.

"Looks like I got a 15, 14, 12, 10, 8, and 7. Time to be a wizard."
This is why I use point buy and average health at my table. I don't like silly little rolls affecting how characters work in the long run.


That's part of the reason I want the classes starting arrays to be the same. If you're picking between which class is able to do the most with the tools they can, they should also start at the same place.
Okay, okay. I would say the items are the same as well, but the crusader's less MAD abilities would mess that up.

No objections from my end. Here's the link I mentioned:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29110689 *wince* Well...


That looks around what I would expect. Honestly, just giving it a reasonable overview, it basically just looks like a bard. There are some differences, definitely, and there might be some advantage on either side, but still, bard. I'm also doubtful of the battle blessing+ SotAO thing. It's not a key component of the build, so it's not a big deal, but it's worth discussing.
If worst comes to worst and we are messing with questionable stuff... Crusader using a Lute could qualify for extra bardic music and Song of the White Raven.

As for the Bardic v Paladin, the Paladin has less skill points, a worse list,no Bardic Knowledge, less spells per day, and is a prepared caster rather than a spontaneous one.

I think you're right and that it's worth exploring other paladin builds for the completeness of the analysis. At least one should keep the mount.
Mhm. I'm a Zinc Saucier, so giving comparable builds is a cakewalk for me. After I stop throwing up and I can get some sleep in.

[Spuddles]

This is a kobold optimization trick, not a paladin optimization trick, and relies on Dragonwrought kobolds being true dragons, which I don't think is a debate anyone wants to have all over again.


Spuddles, Kobolds aren't true dragons

This has nothing to do with true dragons. Go get your Draconomicon and go to page 66.

"Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels."

Don't see anything regarding true dragons there. A dragonwrought kobold meets both requirements by having age categories that include old (even humans have an old age category) and by having the dragon type.


So it looks like my kobold paladin is still trashing the crusader peasants and their plebeian lack of spells.

[edit]
And Flickerdart, you're free to use as much kobold in your crusader build as you like. I doubt that you can wring enough cheese out of it to be of much use, though, due to its spell poverty.

[Flickerdart]

[edit]
And Flickerdart, you're free to use as much kobold in your crusader build as you like. I doubt that you can wring enough cheese out of it to be of much use, though, due to its spell poverty.
Missing 100% of my point. When all of your power comes from using kobold to cheese epic feats, you're not making the case for the power of the base class. It doesn't matter that the opponent gets no spells at all when all of your spells that matter come from your race.

[Snowbluff]

Flicker, check this out. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8753936&postcount=35) :smalltongue:

[Spuddles]

Missing 100% of my point. When all of your power comes from using kobold to cheese epic feats, you're not making the case for the power of the base class. It doesn't matter that the opponent gets no spells at all when all of your spells that matter come from your race.

No, you're missing the point of OP. Here it is again, in case you forgot:


In one corner, we have the paladin. He is apparently bound, not only by his paladin code, but also by his status as a tier five class. In the other corner, we have the crusader, who is tier three incarnate. Under ordinary circumstances, these two classes would be unevenly matched, but these are not ordinary circumstances. Instead, we shall consider this battle for supremacy from the perspective of a high optimization scenario. Will the paladin's spell access give him the edge, even early on? Or, will the crusader's mettle let him win out in the end? Perhaps we can settle this, and in so doing decide the ultimate fate of the world. This is a continuation of the argument in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292914), and is formed at the forge of the most heated of discussions. Perhaps, at the end of the day, we can find solace in our increased understanding of optimization. Perhaps we will all be destroyed utterly. Only time will tell.

Having no access to spells, the Crusader cannot optimize his spells. You're cries of unfair over proper spell optimization would be similar to complaints that a barbarian gets more out of power attack than a rogue and that is relying on feats and not class features.

[Flickerdart]

No, you're missing the point of OP. Here it is again, in case you forgot:



Having no access to spells, the Crusader cannot optimize his spells. You're cries of unfair over proper spell optimization would be similar to complaints that a barbarian gets more out of power attack than a rogue and that is relying on feats and not class features.
If you were "optimizing Barbarian" by giving him some kind of Epic Power Attack through kobold that was the crux of your build, it would be just as odd as what you're trying to argue now.

I don't mind paladin builds using paladin spells from paladin slots. They have spells, they should use them. But using kobold-granted spell slots to cast arcane spells isn't even remotely a paladin achievement.

[Snowbluff]

Uh, guys.... Do I even have to try against the A Game Paladin? It kind f falls under all of the stuff I was talking about. Like using magic items to cast 9th level spells. I mean Skill Knowledge or Cosmopolitan would cover this. :s

And then it suggests to take leadership? Should I just ignore that?

[Spuddles]

If you were "optimizing Barbarian" by giving him some kind of Epic Power Attack through kobold that was the crux of your build, it would be just as odd as what you're trying to argue now.

I don't mind paladin builds using paladin spells from paladin slots. They have spells, they should use them. But using kobold-granted spell slots to cast arcane spells isn't even remotely a paladin achievement.

So using at least 14 levels of paladin to achieve maximum spell level in a spellcasting class, taking the paladin feat Sword of the Arcane Order, and using dragon-type to piggy back 9th level spellcasting onto paladin spellcasting has nothing to do with paladins?

Can you get superior casting with Crusader? I mean, if we're in a high optimization environment, if you don't have 9ths, then why are you bothering?

OP needs to establish some more rules, otherwise the it just comes down to who can get the most spells, and AFAIK, Sword of the Arcane Order gives that advantage to Paladin to a degree that Crusader could only match via selling 10 foot poles for infinite wealth. Which doesn't have much to do with the Crusader class.

[Flickerdart]

So using at least 14 levels of paladin to achieve maximum spell level in a spellcasting class, taking the paladin feat Sword of the Arcane Order, and using dragon-type to piggy back 9th level spellcasting onto paladin spellcasting has nothing to do with paladins?
I didn't say it has nothing to do with paladins. I said it isn't a paladin achievement. The kobold is doing all of the legwork here.

[Spuddles]

I didn't say it has nothing to do with paladins. I said it isn't a paladin achievement. The kobold is doing all of the legwork here.

So what? This is an optimization exercise. The class most conducive to being optimized is going to be the best. Being upset that one class is better at being optimized than another is sorta missing the point.

[lord_khaine]

To try and come with a somewhat neutral point of view, then wouldnt it make most sense to compare builds at levels that see more play, like fx 5, 10 and 15?

And for that matter, to try and agree on some reasonable multiclass resctrictions, seing as free multiclassing is one of the biggest advantages in ToB?


So what? This is an optimization exercise. The class most conducive to being optimized is going to be the best. Being upset that one class is better at being optimized than another is sorta missing the point.

This does however also lock the paladin class out for anyone who doesnt want to play a kobold.

[Flickerdart]

So what? This is an optimization exercise. The class most conducive to being optimized is going to be the best. Being upset that one class is better at being optimized than another is sorta missing the point.
No, no, no. You don't understand.

I'm not upset that paladin is being optimized, because that's not what you're doing. You're optimizing kobold and then sticking paladin on it, because the little lizard is quite literally contributing more to your build than your base class. Given that the trick is far more effective when used with a better casting class (all those 10-level PrCs come to mind) it's even less of a paladin achievement.

Incidentally, how are you getting the 17 CL necessary to cast all those lovely 9th level arcane spells?

[Snowbluff]

Any class can cast 9th level spells. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8753936&postcount=35) Using tricks to do this is what I would consider outside the scope of the challenge.

[Eldariel]

If you were "optimizing Barbarian" by giving him some kind of Epic Power Attack through kobold that was the crux of your build, it would be just as odd as what you're trying to argue now.

I don't mind paladin builds using paladin spells from paladin slots. They have spells, they should use them. But using kobold-granted spell slots to cast arcane spells isn't even remotely a paladin achievement.

Commoners can get 9th level slots. That hardly proves anything. Just leave the race abuses and extreme optimization outta this and focus on bringing out the best of each class.

Illumian is a borderline case since Aeshkrau is almost exclusively good on very specific Gish-builds but it'd still be basically a one-race build which is a bit limiting far as talking the potential of the class goes.

[Gwendol]

Don't lose sight of the objective gentlemen! We still haven't seen how an optimized crusader looks like, and how it stacks up against the a-game paladin.

[Gwendol]

The illumian works better but that build is workable with any race. It's really there to cast spells off strength. I guess any gish would benefit equally or more.

[Snowbluff]

Don't lose sight of the objective gentlemen! We still haven't seen how an optimized crusader looks like, and how it stacks up against the a-game paladin.

Do I have to? The a-game paladin specifically casts from scrolls and Crusader can use these levels of services or similar lax attention to the rules to use inspire courage as well.

What I have so far is: Replace the race with azurin, remove the SotAO and from Smite to Song for Extra Music and Extra Essentia, Song of the White Raven from Azurin, and then pick up Shape Soulmeld: Mage's Spectacles.

EDIT: Forgot about practiced spellcaster. Replace that with sudden recovery. Or Extra Granted. It's really a matter of taste.

[Spuddles]

No, no, no. You don't understand.

I'm not upset that paladin is being optimized, because that's not what you're doing. You're optimizing kobold and then sticking paladin on it, because the little lizard is quite literally contributing more to your build than your base class. Given that the trick is far more effective when used with a better casting class (all those 10-level PrCs come to mind) it's even less of a paladin achievement.

I just read through pages 2&3 of thread- it seems that you guys have already begun pulling things off the Paladin chassis to see when he hits crusader level.

I will absolutely concede this point to you, then. SotAO already adds more to the paladin class than just about anything else, and, after reading more thread, it seems that it's already been agreed upon that SotAO is the tits.


Incidentally, how are you getting the 17 CL necessary to cast all those lovely 9th level arcane spells?

Mystic Fire Knight, Practiced Spellcaster, Magic Tattoo, Orange Ioun Stone, Bead of Karma, etc. It's kinda messy and puts spell progression kinda close to what a normal caster would do. CL 15 at Level 14, and +1 every two levels thereafter (save for when using a bead of karma, of course).


Any class can cast 9th level spells. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8753936&postcount=35) Using tricks to do this is what I would consider outside the scope of the challenge.

Yes, but a scalypaladin has more slots and far, far more spells known, as that build you outlined doesn't have a method of gaining more spells known outside of feats & WBL.

[Snowbluff]

It actually can gain spells known the same way a Paladin would. Write it down in a spell book.

[Spuddles]

It actually can gain spells known the same way a Paladin would. Write it down in a spell book.

Does Magical Training really do that?

[Snowbluff]

"You prepare spells exactly as a wizard does."

[Spuddles]

"You prepare spells exactly as a wizard does."

Is there somewhere equating preparing spells to learning spells or adding spells to your spell list?

This is a huge derail and we should probably take it somewhere else- but does getting to prepare 3 cantrips entitle you to the whole wizard list? As far as I know, you can prepare spells from other wizard's spellbooks, but only if they're on your spell list.

[Snowbluff]

Is there somewhere equating preparing spells to learning spells or adding spells to your spell list?

This is a huge derail and we should probably take it somewhere else- but does getting to prepare 3 cantrips entitle you to the whole wizard list? As far as I know, you can prepare spells from other wizard's spellbooks, but only if they're on your spell list.
Well, I don't think a SotAO paladin has his own spellbook from the class, so either build is resorting to a borrowed spellbook regardless. That's if copying spells into a book is something only a wizard can do, of course.

[Spuddles]

Well, I don't think a SotAO paladin has his own spellbook from the class, so either build is resorting to a borrowed spellbook regardless. That's if copying spells into a book is something only a wizard can do, of course.

Well, SotAO has a lot more language detailing using others' spellbooks, and Complete Arcane has rules regarding how captured spellbooks work.

A strict reading of Magical Training means you simply prepare spells as a wizard does. And you have exactly three wizard spells to prepare, since there are no other provisions for putting other wizard spells on your spell list. You actually need a method of having a spell on your spell list to prepare it, as a wizard. Magical Training has no such provision, unlike SotAO which expressly allows you to prepare wizard spells in your paladin spell slots.

[Snowbluff]

You prepare spell as a wizard, which includes the clause on borrowing spell books. In addition, you are considered a Wiz or Sorc (Your choice), which would mean you have the wizard list (The main difference between the two is that a Wizard can use spell based on preparation, so you are probably choosing wizard). It seems pretty clear to me.

[Spuddles]

You prepare spell as a wizard, which includes the clause on borrowing spell books. In addition, you are considered a Wiz or Sorc (Your choice), which would mean you have the wizard list (The main difference between the two is that a Wizard can use spell based on preparation, so you are probably choosing wizard). It seems pretty clear to me.

You're actually only considered a wizard or sorc for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the spells you cast, not what spells are on your list/available to prepare.

I mean, you absolutely could prepare spells from another wizard's spell book- if they were one of the 3 cantrips in your spellbook. Trying to prepare any of the spells would work about as well as a enchanter trying to prepare from a banned school, or from an archivist's prayerbook,or a wyrm wizard with a non-wizard spell in its spellbook.

[lord_khaine]

I just read through pages 2&3 of thread- it seems that you guys have already begun pulling things off the Paladin chassis to see when he hits crusader level.

The Crusader is also giving up on quite a few tricks of his own in the current setup.

[Gwendol]

Do I have to? The a-game paladin specifically casts from scrolls and Crusader can use these levels of services or similar lax attention to the rules to use inspire courage as well.

What I have so far is: Replace the race with azurin, remove the SotAO and from Smite to Song for Extra Music and Extra Essentia, Song of the White Raven from Azurin, and then pick up Shape Soulmeld: Mage's Spectacles.

EDIT: Forgot about practiced spellcaster. Replace that with sudden recovery. Or Extra Granted. It's really a matter of taste.

The paladin explicitly casts wizard spells on his own, not necessarily from scrolls. And the crusader can't use his smites to inspire courage, unless you apply a very generous reading of the feat.

Edit: re-reading the quoted text I'm not sure this is what you meant, so please excuse my confusion in that case.

[Snowbluff]

The paladin explicitly casts wizard spells on his own, not necessarily from scrolls. And the crusader can't use his smites to inspire courage, unless you apply a very generous reading of the feat.

Edit: re-reading the quoted text I'm not sure this is what you meant, so please excuse my confusion in that case.

Well, my problem here is the peak of the build's casting noted is the ability to use 9th level wizard scrolls. This can be easily done with the UMD set up I proposed (22 at level 20 before cha and items).

And I was referring to the ability to enter 2 orders and the paladin counting as a bard for the Vest of Legends, which I am pretty sure does not work without actual bard levels. It's pretty lax, and with the same logic a Crusader can use a Masterwork Lute to qualify for Extra Music and Song of the White Raven. These are self sustaining when taken in concert (Requiring a vague and inclusive 'bardic music,' which is arguably granted by SotWR), and without cheating you can qualify by paying a bard to cast Protege.

[Zaq]

I do feel like it's worth mentioning that low levels do exist, and at low levels, the magic (and, for that matter, other goodies) that a Paladin brings to the table is extremely limited. At level 6-7, for instance (a level pretty dear to my heart, since I play E6, though I recognize that E6 is not what is being discussed here), a Paladin has at most three spells per day, and that's assuming the MFK sub level, which of course removes any possibility of optimizing divine feats. (If you can convince me that you're pulling 20 WIS at level 6 with no ill effects, I'll concede one more spell, but that's seriously pushing things.) That is not a hell of a lot of spells per day. That is, in fact, very few spells per day. Even if you use SotAO to get Wizard spells out of the deal, I admit that I am not very impressed by a maximum of three 1st-level Wizard spells (with low save DCs) per day at level 6. I simply am not.

Honestly, even up to levels 8-10 (when the Pally gets level 2 spells), I'm not impressed with the number of spells per day you're bringing to the table. A maximum of three 2nd-level spells and maybe, MAYBE four 1st-level spells per day at level 10? It's not trivial, but I'm not convinced that it's enough alone to outdo what the Crusader's offering, especially since you're probably investing at least one, probably two feats in it (Battle Blessing and SotAO).

But even ignoring 2nd-level spells, there's a lot of levels where the Pally only has level 1 spells at best, and very few of them per day. There are some perfectly good level 1 Pally spells (Bless Weapon is fun, and Rhino's Rush is about as good as it gets for a charger), but the number per day is troubling. Up to level 7 is a third of the game, and since so many games start at lower levels, I'd argue that it's the most important third of the game. (That's far from definitive, but even weighting all levels evenly, that's a really nontrivial chunk of a character's career.) I don't see what the Paladin can bring to the table up to and including level 7 that will put it on par with the Crusader.

At later levels, sure, more magic = more better, and I'll accept that it's theoretically possible for a Paladin's spells to give them the edge. I've never personally seen it done, but there's a lot of things I've never seen done that are still perfectly valid, and I'm not trying to argue that point. But I am saying that there's a good chunk of a Paladin's career where they simply don't have much in the way of these much-vaunted spells. A Crusader kicks ass from level 1, and they keep getting new toys to play with at pretty much every level. Before a Paladin can rely on spells to get them through the day, though, I don't feel like they have what it takes to keep up. Harmonious Knight's IC ability isn't worth the standard action until you can spend the resources (levels, feats, and items) to buff it above +1 or +2. Smite Evil is a joke. Turn Undead requires, again, feats to turn it into anything useful, assuming you're not trading it out for an extra spell or two every day. The special mount is . . . decent, though its problems have been acknowledged by plenty of folks here in this topic. Lay on Hands is outdone by Devoted Spirit healing maneuvers. The defensive abilities are OK, but I'd still rather have Crusader tricks.

So, to those who hold the Paladin above the Crusader, it boils down to this: when do you say that the Paladin's spell access definitively places it above the Crusader? The early game is not kind to the Paladin, while the Crusader is one of the strongest classes out of the gate. Accepting that a high-level Paladin's magic is the key to victory, how high-level do they have to be to bring that to the forefront?

[Gwendol]

The build works fine without the vest. And had native access to fourth level wizard spells, some which can be prepared as paladin spells and thus legal for battle blessing swiftness.
How will the crusader top that?

[Flickerdart]

The build works fine without the vest. And had native access to fourth level wizard spells, some which can be prepared as paladin spells and thus legal for battle blessing swiftness.
How will the crusader top that?
"You can use your paladin and ranger spell slots to prepare wizard spells." How do you intend to make these wizard spells into paladin spells, again?

[Gwendol]

Zaq, just want to point out that this particular build does IC from smite evil, not HK sub level. Furthermore, the mount is exchanged for the divine spirit, which at the level you get it suddenly triples LoH healing, and where the summoned spirit can do it at range.
Thanks to illumian, the casting keys off strength, and thanks to MFK and SotAO the caster level is higher than for a normal paladin.

[Gwendol]

"You can use your paladin and ranger spell slots to prepare wizard spells." How do you intend to make these wizard spells into paladin spells, again?

Eh, you still cast them as a paladin, using your paladin spell slots no matter the list they were originally on.

[Spuddles]

limited spells per day

A valid point.

Mystic Fire Knight helps, with a bonus 1st through 4th level slot, and you can get some pretty decent mileage out of pearls of power, given the relative power you get out of low level slots.

The broader issue- paladins being weak at low levels- is something I've encountered very frequently. They need a lot of high ability scores for their class features to function, they are very item dependent, and they need both combat feats and feats to make their class features worth a damn. They're supposed to be a holy warrior, kick in the door, and bring DOOM, but they can't actually play like that at low levels. Their AC is abysmal, they bleed out quickly, they don't have the feats that fighters to get to wield chains, knock things down, cleave, or hit more reliably.

A crusader, on the other hand, can heal itself every round while attacking, has more effective HP via delay damage pool, and the maneuvers function fairly well in place of the feats that are optimal at very low levels but are less viable at higher.

Maybe someone's managed to make an effective level 1 paladin out there, but compared to a warforged crusader with adamantine body, I haven't seen it.

[Flickerdart]

Eh, you still cast them as a paladin, using your paladin spell slots no matter the list they were originally on.
That does not make them paladin spells. They are wizard spells, because the ability lets you prepare wizard spells, not add wizard spells to your paladin spell list.

[Spuddles]

Yeah, as awesome as it would be to get battle blessing to make all your spells swift, they only work on the ones on the paladin list. Prestige Paladin would be super duper amazing, otherwise.

[eggynack]

As for the Bardic v Paladin, the Paladin has less skill points, a worse list,no Bardic Knowledge, less spells per day, and is a prepared caster rather than a spontaneous one.
Before cheese and before scrolls, the SotAO using paladin is casting off the wizard list. The wizard list, being the wizard list, is generally better than the bard list. You're correct on the other counts, so the main argument in the paladin's favor is that he's trading faster advancement for broader spell access. The bard might have an edge, but wizard spells seem more accepting of cheese.



Having no access to spells, the Crusader cannot optimize his spells. You're cries of unfair over proper spell optimization would be similar to complaints that a barbarian gets more out of power attack than a rogue and that is relying on feats and not class features.
Optimizing spells and getting early 9th's are different things. The thing I was referring to, though it may have been muddled or unclear, was a side by side comparison between crusader maneuvers and paladin spells at each level of play. Like, at level four, we'd possibly be comparing access to three first level wizard spells a day to the maneuvers and stances the crusader has at fourth level. I'd honestly prefer it if we stuck to practical optimization here. High practical optimization, yes, but when you pick up crazy amounts of wizard casting, it feels non-indicative. There's a time and a place for TO, and I don't think this is it.


Do I have to?
Well, you or someone who is not you. We can address the issues that the paladin has, and it can be a discussion full of beauty and eloquence, but it's utterly meaningless if we don't have a crusader to compare it to. What can a crusader do with optimized stance and maneuver selection? Can a crusader get more out of combat utility than Kelb claims, or are their pure combat abilities enough to rocket them to tier three on their own? These are questions that very much need to be answered, and they can't be answered without something to work with.

Very true things
These are very true things. As I've mentioned, even if the paladin is rocking crazy casting at level twenty, he is not doing so at level one, short of uber-cheese. The question you've raised about how high up in level the paladin has to go before he can beat the crusader is a very important one.

[Gwendol]

I understand the argument against using battle blessing with spells from the wizard list cast through SotAO, but I don't subscribe to them.
However, for the sake of this discussion, battle blessing only works on spells on the paladin spell list.

And Zaq is right in that in an E6 game, the crusader stands very strong. I'm not sure a paladin can match that, and certainly not this kind of gish paladin mostly discussed thus far.

[ArcturusV]

Odd question prompted by Zaq's post:

In an E6 game, is there a point where the Paladin DOES start to pull ahead? The thing is, I'm thinking that eventually that 5k XP=Bonus Feat thing is going to put the Paladin ahead of the Crusader. There's a metric crapton of feats that are good for Paladins, or at least useful for paladins, or give paladins more options, that are generally not talked about because in the 7 or so feats we're locked into, and with some that are obviously stronger (Mounted Charger build Feats, Sword of the Arcane Order, Power Attack Chain, etc) taking up most of the slots they don't get considered.

But outside of stuff that anyone can benefit from, more or less, I don't know that there's all that much in the way of Crusader relevant feats.

[Snowbluff]

Okay, I'll start with a list of maneuvers together that I think would benefit a party best, since straight damage would not decide this. Crusader gets a mave know per level, except for first.

First: Fill prereqs
Second: Shield Block
Third: White Raven Tactics
Fourth: White Raven Strike
Fifth: Elder Mountain Hammer
Sixth: Rallying Strike (Irresistible Mountain Strike if it had no save)
Seventh: Shield Counter (Was a tough choice)
Eighth: White Raven Hammer
Ninth: Strike of Righteous Vitality

IIRC, you can actually trade in you lower level maneuver for higher level ones, so these are just my first picks.


(Mounted Charger build Feats, Sword of the Arcane Order, Power Attack Chain, etc) taking up most of the slots they don't get considered.

But outside of stuff that anyone can benefit from, more or less, I don't know that there's all that much in the way of Crusader relevant feats.
Only one of those is a Paladin specific feat. Most of the feat relevant to Paladin are relevant to crusader, and Crusader has option for [Tactical] though their class feature. I like the Faith Unswerving in particular., since it lets you throw yourself in front of your friends and move with your enemies. Clarion Commander is nice for helping the rogue in the party, but Shards of Granite I find lackluster.

More Bard v Paladin, Bard has sixth level spells and has option for expanding his list through items and feats as well.

[limejuicepowder]

Odd question prompted by Zaq's post:

In an E6 game, is there a point where the Paladin DOES start to pull ahead? The thing is, I'm thinking that eventually that 5k XP=Bonus Feat thing is going to put the Paladin ahead of the Crusader. There's a metric crapton of feats that are good for Paladins, or at least useful for paladins, or give paladins more options, that are generally not talked about because in the 7 or so feats we're locked into, and with some that are obviously stronger (Mounted Charger build Feats, Sword of the Arcane Order, Power Attack Chain, etc) taking up most of the slots they don't get considered.

But outside of stuff that anyone can benefit from, more or less, I don't know that there's all that much in the way of Crusader relevant feats.

Martial study, martial stance, and that one feat that gives an extra granted maneuver come to mind. Plus any of the more generic melee feats would appeal equally to the crusader as the paladin - more so, in the case of imp trip and related feats.

Yes there are some insanely good paladin only feats, but it seems to me that the pally is going to need most (if not all) of them just to get in the ballpark of the crusader - it's a conceded point that a more vanilla pally is considerably weaker then a vanilla crusader. Once those are taken, he's only going to have the same feats the crusader is going to want also, making them rather moot.

[Flickerdart]

You can only take Martial Study three times, so in a scenario with n feats it's not hugely relevant.

[eggynack]

You can only take Martial Study three times, so in a scenario with n feats it's not hugely relevant.
It's as relevant as anything else, really. I mean, how many times can you take power attack, or any of the mounted combat feats? By and large, you're looking at a whopping once. Meanwhile, how many "paladin" feats are that much better for paladins? There are some, but the list isn't world devouring. Sword of the arcane order will only ever get you first level spells, so that's pretty unimpressive all things considered. The three times thing is important, and it's honestly not something I'd noticed, but most feats can be taken quite a bit less. By that metric, most feats aren't hugely relevant, because you're only taking power attack once, after all.

[Flickerdart]

The difference between "has Power Attack" and "doesn't have Power Attack" is considerably larger than between "has ten maneuvers" and "has thirteen maneuvers" or whatever those numbers end up being, especially since Power Attack gives you access to Leap Attack and Shock Trooper and all that good stuff while Martial Study/Stance gives you...Stone Power? That's basically about it.

[eggynack]

The difference between "has Power Attack" and "doesn't have Power Attack" is considerably larger than between "has ten maneuvers" and "has thirteen maneuvers" or whatever those numbers end up being, especially since Power Attack gives you access to Leap Attack and Shock Trooper and all that good stuff while Martial Study/Stance gives you...Stone Power? That's basically about it.
Sure, and that's a significantly better argument, I think. The numbers are actually seven to ten, which is more than your off the cuff numbers, but that's a little on the recursively irrelevant side. My point, if there's ever a point in this crazy world of ours, is that the potentially limited nature of martial study has very little to do with the feat's spammability. If martial study is irrelevant, it's irrelevant in a regular world and an n feats world in nearly equal measures. I'm not really sure what the fact that you can only take the feat three times has to do with it. If moving from seven to ten maneuvers isn't worth it, I can't see it suddenly becoming worth it when you move from seven to significantly more than ten. In fact, the value add of each use of martial study is probably reduced in comparison to the prior usage.

[limejuicepowder]

Couldn't martial study be used to gain some maneuvers from a school the crusader doesn't have access to normally? Cause that's pretty big. Shadow jaunt, moment of perfect mind, and iron heart surge are all very good (not that those in particular can all be taken due to prereqs of course).

Additionally, they WILL be added to the crusader's regular list and be recovered like any other maneuver. This makes the martial study feat better for the crusader than it is for the paladin.

[eggynack]

Couldn't martial study be used to gain some maneuvers from a school the crusader doesn't have access to normally? Cause that's pretty big. Shadow jaunt, moment of perfect mind, and iron heart surge are all very good (not that those in particular can all be taken due to prereqs of course).

Additionally, they WILL be added to the crusader's regular list and be recovered like any other maneuver. This makes the martial study feat better for the crusader than it is for the paladin.
It looks like it can, though you can probably only take them as an initiator of half your level. That's how I think it works. Thus, for the weird E6 thing, you wouldn't be able to take iron heart surge. For the actual challenge, which doesn't actually involve E6 at all, this could be somewhat useful.

[limejuicepowder]

It looks like it can, though you can probably only take them as an initiator of half your level. That's how I think it works. Thus, for the weird E6 thing, you wouldn't be able to take iron heart surge. For the actual challenge, which doesn't actually involve E6 at all, this could be somewhat useful.

The sentence full sentence is "If you do not have martial adept levels, you may use this maneuver once per encounter with an initiator level equal to 1/2 class levels." I don't see how this would prevent the crusader from taking IHS since the maneuver only requires you meet it's prereqs, which in the case of IHS is initiator level 5 and 1 iron heart maneuver. A crusader can easily meet this requirement, even if iron heart is not a school he normally has access to.

[eggynack]

The sentence full sentence is "If you do not have martial adept levels, you may use this maneuver once per encounter with an initiator level equal to 1/2 class levels." I don't see how this would prevent the crusader from taking IHS since the maneuver only requires you meet it's prereqs, which in the case of IHS is initiator level 5 and 1 iron heart maneuver. A crusader can easily meet this requirement, even if iron heart is not a school he normally has access to.
Huh. Really? I've never read it that way. I've always figured that if you're not hitting the prerequisite through class levels, then you're hitting it through the half level thing. You might be right though. That seems like it could be seriously helpful to the crusader. I mean, the paladin can pick up some maneuvers, but is stuck with low level ones, and can only get them when they're twice the normal level. If there are some good maneuvers with out of combat utility, that could have a big effect. It's an interesting thing if it works.

[Nightraiderx]

Are we forgetting the good tactical feats that come with the martial study/martial stance feats? If I was given an E6 Sader, I would be grabbing quite a few of those tactical feats because it would make the Sader more versatile and lead to some interesting combinations. AoO tripping would still be relevant at that level and there are alot of feats that could improve that capacity. A paladin at most can grab up to three of those ToB tactical feats, but a crusader would be able to grab up to 6 of them, and I know the iron heart one is very very good with an AoO build. If no one is willing to build the Sader, I can give it a try. I've always been better at building and optimizing melee than I will ever be at optimizing casters. Shall we do an E6 comparison vs full lvl 20 build with flaws? It would be interesting in the least. Can't build now, porbably would have to be when I get home. Also, it would also be nice to know if there is a book limit to this. I am already cooking up an idea for a Song of the raven/power attack type sader.

[Gwendol]

You can't benefit from song if the white raven without bard levels, IIRC. Just build a crusader 20, but detailed enough for a level by level analysis.

[eggynack]

For books, I'm mostly thinking non-Dragon. I suppose that there are some more limited book sets, though by the very nature of this challenge the books would have to have a broad enough scope to encapsulate ToB. For example, one possible make up is core+ToB, but it seems rather unlikely for a game to use ToB, and not the compendiums and completes. I don't think we should actually run an E6 majig, at least for now. That seems like it might be outside the scope of an actual test, because a high feat/low level situation is abnormal. It's fun to theorycraft a bit, but it doesn't seem necessary to run real simulations. Realistically, you'd want a cohesive build with a stopping point at each paladin spell level. The traditional levels are 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, though they can be altered. I don't think we can use level 11 instead of 10 though, because that skips over the second level spells test.

Multiclassing based builds seem like they shouldn't be allowed, despite the advantage that crusaders derive from multiclassing. Crusader is obviously a better dip than paladin, so it's not nearly as important to prove that. There could be an exception made for dips, but I don't know whether there should be one, or what the allowance would be. I'm not sure about flaws, so if there's a consensus one way or the other, we can presumably go with that.

[Snowbluff]

You can't benefit from song if the white raven without bard levels, IIRC. Just build a crusader 20, but detailed enough for a level by level analysis.

Well, you count as a Bard of your Warblade/Crusader Level for determining you Inspire Courage. At level 1 you can use the ability to have IC +1, but you have no Bardic Music user per day, hence extra music. It works on the same principle as Tashalatora, where 0 + 1 = 1, and certainly fits with a paladin in 2 orders using an item for a different class.

You guys can put everything I've said to make a full build, by the way.

[Nightraiderx]

Actually if one uses the "from smite to song" feat, they can use the crusader's smite ability to emulate the bard's inspire courage, even though that bonus would be +0 (due to having no paladin levels). Furthermore: the prereqs for Sotwr are "Bardic music (inspire courage), one White Raven maneuver." Since you can technically still use Bardic music (inspire courage) from the "from smite to song" feat even though you have a bonus of 0, you can still use it as a prequisite for Sotwr. The from smite to song feat just says you have to be a member of the Harmonius Order, which I don't think is solely for paladins if you roleplay it. Would still need extra music to offset the limited uses of smite a crusader has. Although I'm not going to be using song of the white raven anyways.

[Snowbluff]

Yeah, it checks out. The section heading points out the orders are not made exclusively of paladins.

[Gwendol]

From smite to song requires "smite evil" which if I recall the crusader doesn't get. They can't use the feat. I'm not sure FStS qualifies as bardic music either, just inspire courage. Emulates the bardic ability is the key word.

[Nightraiderx]

I'm thinking of using goliath as a starting class, although idk how +1 LA will affect the build at lvl 1 or whether or not there is buy off for him. I do have an alternative race for the build, it just works best (more often) when goliath is using it.

[Gwendol]

I have no problem with the LA. Just keep in mind he will be a level behind typically even with buy-off.

[eggynack]

LA feels a little on the contentious side. I mean, if you really think about it, taking on an LA isn't too different from having a one level dip. Thus, I've gotta figure that the resolution to the multiclass thing and the resolution to the LA thing should be the same solution. If we're going with a couple of levels of allowed leeway, that should probably be applicable to LA or other class levels, and if we're not, then we're probably talking about a pure classed build. A goliath probably isn't going to break the game in half, but there are things you can do with LA that does break the game in half, and allowing one thing opens the way for all things. It's something to think about. Going without LA is probably a cleaner way to do things, though it might be worth looking at comparisons with and without LA/dips.

[Eldariel]

Honestly, you should dissociate race from class when making these comparisons. While race can be a huge part of individual builds, when the power is coming from the race rather than the class (or if the build works only on single race), that doesn't speak for the majority of the time the class can be bought into play (aside from race-restricted PRCs of course).

As such, I suggest taking a fairly neutral race or simply not using race-restricted stuff at all, to focus the comparison on the average performance of the class when optimized, rather than the optimal race/class combo in the optimal case scenario. After all, the fact that Kobold Paladins can go Pun-Pun L1 doesn't really have much to do with Paladin, aside from the fact that it's slightly less risky than other uses for Pazuzu according to fluff.

[eggynack]

Honestly, you should dissociate race from class when making these comparisons. While race can be a huge part of individual builds, when the power is coming from the race rather than the class (or if the build works only on single race), that doesn't speak for the majority of the time the class can be bought into play (aside from race-restricted PRCs of course).

As such, I suggest taking a fairly neutral race or simply not using race-restricted stuff at all, to focus the comparison on the average performance of the class when optimized, rather than the optimal race/class combo in the optimal case scenario. After all, the fact that Kobold Paladins can go Pun-Pun L1 doesn't really have much to do with Paladin, aside from the fact that it's slightly less risky than other uses for Pazuzu according to fluff.
Yeah, that's probably true. Maybe it should be human based or something, though there's probably a list of races that are generic enough to work for this. Ideally, as much power as possible should be coming directly from the class itself, so it makes sense to throw away class extraneous features to some extent.

[Mithril Leaf]

Yeah, that's probably true. Maybe it should be human based or something, though there's probably a list of races that are generic enough to work for this. Ideally, as much power as possible should be coming directly from the class itself, so it makes sense to throw away class extraneous features to some extent.

I'd personally recommend the half elf due to playing to skill focus of both and having no stat modifiers or bonus feat.

[eggynack]

I'd personally recommend the half elf due to playing to skill focus of both and having no stat modifiers or bonus feat.
Gyeuh. Maybe. I was thinking about suggesting half elf, but I just didn't have the heart to, in the end. I guess the half elf has... things. Things of some kind, even. It probably doesn't matter all that much what we use as a race, as long as it's not the core of something crazy. Half elf is about as generic as they come though, so it'd probably work out alright. The real problem I have with hyper-generic races, and the reason why I didn't suggest using a home made blank slate race without abilities, is because it's not all that representative of real play situations. It's really the balancing act that occurs whenever you try to control for variables in class comparisons. Other examples of that are wealth by level, and removing all day buffs in arena contexts. It's a thing worth thinking about, at least on occasion.

[Nightraiderx]

The only reason I needed Goliath in the first place was because a feat I wanted to use that required the humanoid be large. There is one to lesser degree but it's not as effective a feat because it doesn't give repeated results. I will make a half-elf one, to make it fair.

[Gwendol]

Nah, pick a LA +0 race of your choice. If having to make it a standard race I suggest human, since that's likely a common choice for these classes anyway.

[Gwendol]

No crusader challenger yet? I will try posting another paladin build later today, one without arcane casting. Maybe it'll even the field?

I'd also like to revisit the notion that crusaders really are tier 4. More to come on that as well.

[Nightraiderx]

My computer is a pain in the butt sometimes, I have the feats ready and I have an idea of what I want my stats to be, so I'll probably work on it today, although I have never been good/fast at equipment selection/character creation. so forgive me on that front.