Upgrading Paladin to Bard spellcasting progression

[Hish]

How would paladin measure up to bard if paladin is upgraded to the bard spellcasting progression? For levels 0, 5, and 6, I would write new spell lists in line with the existing lists. It would stay prepared, divine, and Wis based, but the CL would increase to class level instead of 1/2.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

It helps a lot more at low levels than higher ones. You get basically the whole spell list 4 levels sooner, which is a big deal for early on, with the very good Spell Compendium options now available pre-lvl 5. Late-game, though, while having a fighter who can cast Heal isn't a bad thing, it doesn't actually address any of the issues of the class or make it stronger in any noticeable way.

That said, why keep casting Wis-based? Make the class 100% Cha and you've made their life so much simpler.

[Biggus]

Making caster level equal class level does solve one of their big problems at high level, namely that a lot of their best spells are buffs and they're laughably easily to dispel.

I did work out a 5th and 6th level spell list for the Paladin ages ago, I'll dig it out if you're interested.

On the whole, I think it's a good idea. What spells you give them access to will be the main determiner of how much it increases their power of course.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Biggus
I did work out a 5th and 6th level spell list for the Paladin ages ago, I'll dig it out if you're interested.

I'd be very interested in seeing that list, since I'm interested in doing something similar to the OP's concept.

[Silly Name]

I think another option could be to give Paladins (and Rangers) the spell progression they have in 5e. You still need to come up with some fifth-level spells, but you can probably pilfer something from the Cleric (and Druid) spell list.

If you want to give them cantrips, the Cleric's PHB cantrips minus Detect Magic, Inflict Wounds, Mending and Read Magic would be a fitting list.

I have actually homebrewed in the Duskblade progression for all Paladins and Rangers in my 3.5 campaigns, doing exactly this for cantrips (Rangers obviously get the Druid spell list with the same exceptions as above), and it hasn't really done anything but make early-level play for Paladins and Rangers a bit more enjoyable. I also gave all Paladins the option to use Charisma as their casting stat, no Serenity feat needed, to help with MAD. An interesting consequence is that the slightly faster spellcasting progression makes certain PrCs accessible to them as well, although they don't really get to compete with Clerics in that regard anyway since they're still locked to fourth-level spells at most.

As much as I love those two classes, it's hard to deny that as they are in the PHB they're still miles below full casters, especially once you get to the point where casters don't have to worry about expending all their spells in one or two encounters, and suffer greatly at higher levels when their features start lagging behind. Any small boost that they can get is welcome, and doesn't actually upset the game at all (unless you end up turning them into Clerics and Druids with heavy armor and martial weapons proficiency, but that's basically impossible to do on accident).

[Biggus]

I'd be very interested in seeing that list, since I'm interested in doing something similar to the OP's concept.

OK, here's what I came up with (all are from PHB or SpC unless noted):

5th-level spells

Atonement
Blistering Radiance
Cure Critical Wounds
Disrupting Weapon
Divine Retribution (CCh)
Flame Strike
Forbiddance
Hallow
Incorporeal Nova
Life's Grace
Mark of Sin (CCh)
Righteous Might
Righteous Wrath of the Faithful
Surge of Fortune (CCh)
True Seeing
Zone of Revelation

6th-level spells

Bolt of Glory
Brilliant Blade
Bull's Strength, Mass
Cure Light Wounds, Mass
Dictum
Dispel Magic, Greater
Eagle's Splendour, Mass
Geas/Quest
Ghost Trap
Healing Circle (CCh)
Holy Word
Lucent Lance
Opalescent Glare
Owl's Wisdom, Mass
Raise Dead
Revivify
Stone Body
Undeath to Death
Visage of the Deity
Weight of Sin (CCh)
Zealot Pact

How I decided what to include

1) Nearly all of the existing Paladin spells are in one of the following categories or themes:

good
law
truth
justice
combat buffs
healing
light
anti-undead

2) Nearly all Paladin spells which are not unique to them are on the Cleric list, so I chose them from there. There might be an odd one from other spell lists which would be suitable, but it didn't seem worth sifting through thousands of spells to add just a couple.

How I decided what level they should be

Most are the same level as for a Cleric, with a few exceptions:

1) Paladins get all healing spells except Cure Light Wounds a level later than Clerics, so I continued that trend. This is why they don't get Heal as a 6th-level spell (although I don't think it would break anything if you did give it to them).

2) Some spells which are especially thematic for a Paladin they get a level earlier than Clerics (examples from the PHB include Greater Magic Weapon, Discern Lies, Dispel Evil, and Mark of Justice) so I followed this trend, with Forbiddance being dropped from 6th to 5th, and Dictum, Holy Word and Brilliant Blade from 7th to 6th.

[liquidformat]

I did a rewrite of the Paladin (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e4ab17su_rojoA4XyQiQz1oLzVx28tyL6JtkdllXQ74/edit?usp=sharing) class that I think gives it a pretty good all around boost though went with only 5th level spells

[Hish]

Thanks everyone for the feedback.


OK, here's what I came up with (all are from PHB or SpC unless noted):
*spells*

How I decided what to include

1) Nearly all of the existing Paladin spells are in one of the following categories or themes:

good
law
truth
justice
combat buffs
healing
light
anti-undead

2) Nearly all Paladin spells which are not unique to them are on the Cleric list, so I chose them from there. There might be an odd one from other spell lists which would be suitable, but it didn't seem worth sifting through thousands of spells to add just a couple.

How I decided what level they should be

Most are the same level as for a Cleric, with a few exceptions:

1) Paladins get all healing spells except Cure Light Wounds a level later than Clerics, so I continued that trend. This is why they don't get Heal as a 6th-level spell (although I don't think it would break anything if you did give it to them).

2) Some spells which are especially thematic for a Paladin they get a level earlier than Clerics (examples from the PHB include Greater Magic Weapon, Discern Lies, Dispel Evil, and Mark of Justice) so I followed this trend, with Forbiddance being dropped from 6th to 5th, and Dictum, Holy Word and Brilliant Blade from 7th to 6th.

Thank you. I will probably end up using basically these lists, if that's alright with you. I was already planning on dropping healing spells to the normal levels.


That said, why keep casting Wis-based? Make the class 100% Cha and you've made their life so much simpler.

I was going to make a Paladin / Bard organization, and I wanted to keep the two separate. I probably should consolidate to either Cha or Wis.

[Biggus]

Thank you. I will probably end up using basically these lists, if that's alright with you.

Please do :smallsmile:

Inevitably, there are a few borderline cases. For example, Paladins have very few direct-damage spells but Lucent Lance is a light spell, so after some thought I decided to include it. In the other direction, Stalwart Pact and Spell Resistance I considered adding but narrowly decided not to. Everybody will have different preferences on the edge cases, but I think about 80% of the list is pretty solid.



I was already planning on dropping healing spells to the normal levels.


I'd considered doing the same, it never been clear to me why they followed the Druid progression for healing spells rather than the Cleric one.


I did a rewrite of the Paladin (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e4ab17su_rojoA4XyQiQz1oLzVx28tyL6JtkdllXQ74/edit?usp=sharing) class that I think gives it a pretty good all around boost though went with only 5th level spells

Wow, that's a lot of work. One question: why did you give them Dictum but not Holy Word? Paladins are more strongly good-themed than law-themed as far as I can see.

[liquidformat]

Wow, that's a lot of work. One question: why did you give them Dictum but not Holy Word? Paladins are more strongly good-themed than law-themed as far as I can see.

Two different things going on there, one haven't done an exhaustive search of spells to choose which ones I want to have as 5th level. Second, a bit of laziness since I intended for the paragraph above talking about changing spells based on alignment to be invoked. For example a good paladin would have holy word, evil would have blasphemy, and chaotic would have word of chaos. Same way detect and other such spells were intended to be alignment fluid.

[Rebel7284]

While boosting the spell progression for Paladins would be cool, I am wondering if you are aware of Sword of the Arcane Order feat?

[Saint-Just]

In addition to the SotAA - have you looked into prestige paladin from the Unearthed Arcana?

[Silly Name]

I'd considered doing the same, it never been clear to me why they followed the Druid progression for healing spells rather than the Cleric one.

I think the idea is that the Cleric is supposed to be the best at healing/harming spells so gets to learn them a level earlier than anybody else, and Paladins are supposed to be front-line fighters first, support/healers second.

[Psyren]

Full BAB and 6th-level casting is a combination we don't often see. What might be preferable is picking a few of the mid-level cleric spells you think Paladins are missing with their current progression, and adding them to the Paladin list as 3rd or 4th-level spells. That gives you a lot more fine control over the power increase you'd be giving the paladin, similar to what was done with the Bloodrager or the Gifted Blade Soulknife. For example, I could see Righteous Might or Holy Smite being added to the Paladin list as 4th or possibly even 3rd-level spells.

[Ramza00]

It would not be unbalanced. That said some of the new and cool Paladin spells from later sources may need a single spell level increase.

For example a bard at level 7 can cast 3rd level spells and a paladin at level 8 can cast 2nd level spells. Giving a paladin at 7 3rd level spells is not unbalanced it is just a question of "which" 3rd level spells (and 1st and 2nd level spells) you give a paladin at level 7.

[daryen]

Full BAB and 6th-level casting is a combination we don't often see.

This would be my main concern. If you combine Full BAB and 6th-level casting, why are there *any* classes with 3/4 BAB and 6th-level casting? And why are there any classes with Full BAB and no casting?

Honestly, doing this, I would also expect to see all 6th-level casters be bumped to full BAB.

I'd also expect a generic class that uses Fighter as a base, but adds the Bard's spell progression, and uses Wizard/Sorcerer spells (only up to 6th-level spells, of course) with spontaneous casting. I play the crap out of that class!

[Hish]

Full BAB and 6th-level casting is a combination we don't often see.

I noticed that, but I figured that the Paladin's worse spell list would balance out the marital skill. Prestige Paladin gets 18 BAB and 7th level spells, after all.
I'm playing 3.5, by the way, not pathfinder.

I have a new question: with Paladins getting a real spell progression, should I ban Battle Blessing?

[Psyren]

I noticed that, but I figured that the Paladin's worse spell list would balance out the marital skill. Prestige Paladin gets 18 BAB and 7th level spells, after all.

It's more accurate to say it gets 7th-level spells if you enter with a 9th-level caster, thus being a downgrade. If you instead entered with, say, Divine Bard, you wouldn't hit 7ths, and might not even hit 5ths depending on your build.


I'm playing 3.5, by the way, not pathfinder.

I know, I only mentioned Bloodrager as an example of a full BAB caster with some more powerful spells. Those spells are cherry-picked and lowered to 3rds and 4ths, rather than the class itself being blanketly upgraded.


I have a new question: with Paladins getting a real spell progression, should I ban Battle Blessing?

It should at the very least be limited in some way, like making it 3/day or powered by Lay on Hands/Turning uses or something. Free quicken is pretty strong and the balancing factor there is that paladin spells weren't that potent.

[Seerow]

As a compromise, why not use Duskblade spell progression?

It cuts a spell level off, but 5th level spells is still an upgrade, and you'd end up with a boatload more of the low level spells, which is great considering how good a lot of the low level swift action spells are for the Paladin. It also keeps the power level closer in line such that you probably don't need to neuter Battle Blessing, which is one of the main reasons to play a Paladin.

[Biggus]

I think the idea is that the Cleric is supposed to be the best at healing/harming spells so gets to learn them a level earlier than anybody else, and Paladins are supposed to be front-line fighters first, support/healers second.

You're probably right. They get Lay On Hands and Remove Disease as class features though, so they are pretty healing-focused.


This would be my main concern. If you combine Full BAB and 6th-level casting, why are there *any* classes with 3/4 BAB and 6th-level casting? And why are there any classes with Full BAB and no casting?

Honestly, doing this, I would also expect to see all 6th-level casters be bumped to full BAB.

I don't think this is necessary, by my estimations Paladins with 6th-level casting would still only be tier 3, if they'd be better overall than the Bard it wouldn't be dramatically so. The full BAB bonus and no casting classes are a problem though, while I don't think giving them all spellcasting is necessary I think you'd probably need to give them some kind of boost.


the marital skill

Oh myyyy...



I have a new question: with Paladins getting a real spell progression, should I ban Battle Blessing?

Agreed that it should be banned or nerfed.

Btw, are you planning to give Rangers 6th-level spells too?


As a compromise, why not use Duskblade spell progression?

It cuts a spell level off, but 5th level spells is still an upgrade, and you'd end up with a boatload more of the low level spells, which is great considering how good a lot of the low level swift action spells are for the Paladin. It also keeps the power level closer in line such that you probably don't need to neuter Battle Blessing, which is one of the main reasons to play a Paladin.

This seems like a good idea if you're concerned about overpowering the Paladin relative to the other martial classes.

[NigelWalmsley]

I noticed that, but I figured that the Paladin's worse spell list would balance out the marital skill. Prestige Paladin gets 18 BAB and 7th level spells, after all.

Also Cleric gets 20 BAB and 9th level spells. Obviously not every game is going to feature DMM: Persist Cleric Archers, but that is a build that exists, and a legitimate point in the conversation about the balance of divine warrior types.

Ultimately, the question is "what balance point are you aiming for". A 6-caster Paladin would be one of the stronger martial classes in the game. But it likely wouldn't be the strongest, and in absolutely terms it would only be middling, even with Sword of the Arcane Order (Battle Blessing would be pretty nuts though).


This would be my main concern. If you combine Full BAB and 6th-level casting, why are there *any* classes with 3/4 BAB and 6th-level casting? And why are there any classes with Full BAB and no casting?

Because they get other stuff? The Bard gets Bardic Music and a (potentially) better spell list, and can go become a Sublime Chord if he wants to. Similarly, I can very easily imagine a setup where the Warblade or Crusader is still comparable to a 6-caster Paladin. Yes, full BAB and 6-casting is better than 3/4 BAB and 6-casting, or full BAB and no casting. But it turns out those aren't the only variables you can tweak. Classes have class features. Spellcasting comes with a class list. I don't think there's any meaningful reason to be concerned here.

Also, full BAB is just not that big of a deal. Even at 20th level, the difference between full BAB and 3/4 BAB is just 5 points. Even a moderately optimized Bard can Inspire Courage for that much. And most games will not get to 20th level (also, at 20th level, if BAB is your biggest balance concern, you're in a pretty good place). If your game caps out at 10th or 12th, full BAB is never more than a +3, and it spends much of the game being a smaller bonus than simply having a good ability score.


Btw, are you planning to give Rangers 6th-level spells too?

I would hope that you would. Fixing one but not the other seems kind of strange. I'd probably look at the Hexblade too, though as a non-core class it's less important.

[TotallyNotEvil]

It'd be a pleasantly powerful T3 to play.

If that sounds your speed, I'd say do it.

[Silly Name]

You're probably right. They get Lay On Hands and Remove Disease as class features though, so they are pretty healing-focused.

Paladins undeniably have healing and support abilities, which flesh out the class and makes it more than "fighter with holy buffs", but let's compare a sixth level Paladin with 16 Charisma to a sixth level Cleric.
Paladin Lay on Hands: 16 points of HP
Cleric's Cure Serious Wounds: 3d8+6 HP, averaging 19 HP, max 30 HP

The Paladin is more reliable because of the fixed number (and with better modifiers heals more than the Cleric), but the Cleric can cast Cure Light Wounds and Cure Moderate Wounds multiple times a day on top of their (on average) better Cure Serious Wounds. Lay on Hands also quickly loses against better healing spells as levels progress. By the way, making Charisma the Paladin's casting stat probably helps making Lay on Hands a bit more effective, since Paladins don't have to worry about splitting resources between Charisma and Wisdom.

Remove Disease is something that has always baffled me due to its once a week limit. I never understood why it was designed like this instead of once per day (in fact, another possible Paladin fix would be to let them use Remove Disease once per day). In fact, the Cleric has Remove Disease as a third level spell, meaning they've been able to cast it a level earlier, and will be able to cast it much more often than a Paladin as they level up.


I don't think this is necessary, by my estimations Paladins with 6th-level casting would still only be tier 3, if they'd be better overall than the Bard it wouldn't be dramatically so. The full BAB bonus and no casting classes are a problem though, while I don't think giving them all spellcasting is necessary I think you'd probably need to give them some kind of boost.

Do you think fifth level casting would kick Paladins down a tier? As I said above, I find the 5e Paladin progression to work pretty well, and might also justify leaving Battle Blessing untouched, or at least nerfed but not banned, perhaps making the faster casting require to expend a daily use of Turn Undead.

Core, we are left with Fighter and Barbarian as full-BaB classes with zero spellcasting (since we're assuming Rangers will get the same spell progression as Paladins). They have always been known to need a fix, especially the Fighter, but that's a wholly different topic. I would be against giving them spellcasting, at least by default, as that leaves the Core game with zero pure martials with full BaB, and makes stuff like Abjurant Champion and Spellsword basically redundant.

[Psyren]

Because they get other stuff? The Bard gets Bardic Music and a (potentially) better spell list, and can go become a Sublime Chord if he wants to. Similarly, I can very easily imagine a setup where the Warblade or Crusader is still comparable to a 6-caster Paladin. Yes, full BAB and 6-casting is better than 3/4 BAB and 6-casting, or full BAB and no casting. But it turns out those aren't the only variables you can tweak. Classes have class features. Spellcasting comes with a class list. I don't think there's any meaningful reason to be concerned here.

I think this justification is pretty poor; Paladins have class features aside from their spellcasting too, and a Paladin can go become a Divine Crusader or Apostle of Peace. I don't think "Sublime Chord exists" is enough reason to dismiss any and all concerns between Paladin 6th-level casting on a full BAB chassis and Bard 6th-level casting on a 3/4 chassis. One key factor is the specific spells being added to 5th and 6th - if they're coming from the cleric list, they might actually beat the Bard's 5ths and 6ths even before we get to the BAB difference.



Also, full BAB is just not that big of a deal. Even at 20th level, the difference between full BAB and 3/4 BAB is just 5 points. Even a moderately optimized Bard can Inspire Courage for that much. And most games will not get to 20th level (also, at 20th level, if BAB is your biggest balance concern, you're in a pretty good place). If your game caps out at 10th or 12th, full BAB is never more than a +3, and it spends much of the game being a smaller bonus than simply having a good ability score.

I think you're dismissing this too - 5 points is equivalent to a +5 weapon, and more importantly your 4th iterative is unlocked at +16, which can cause an outsized difference in your damage per round once buffed enough to land (never mind if it crits). Sure a bard can inspire courage for that much, but (a) IC stacks with BAB anyway meaning the Paladin stays ahead, and (b) the simple fact is that the full BAB class doesn't have to IC to close that gap if it's built into their passive progression.

[Ramza00]

I think you're dismissing this too - 5 points is equivalent to a +5 weapon, and more importantly your 4th iterative is unlocked at +16, which can cause an outsized difference in your damage per round once buffed enough to land (never mind if it crits). Sure a bard can inspire courage for that much, but (a) IC stacks with BAB anyway meaning the Paladin stays ahead, and (b) the simple fact is that the full BAB class doesn't have to IC to close that gap if it's built into their passive progression.

Who plays to 20? Lets assume level 16 as the upper bounds or level 17. For I am willing to bet money that less than 5% of games reach level 20, aka a tail risk scenario.

LVL 16 is 4 attacks for Full BAB
LVL 16 is 3 attacks for 3/4 BAB and with a BAB of 12.
Thus Full BAB vs 3/4 is up to 33% more damage (0 to 33%) but in reality less than 33% due to spells helping both sides. For example if a party member castes haste than an extra attack is 0 to 20% more damage, or if a party wizard casts (Sakkratar's) Triple Strike that is 0 to 16% more damage. Now in this example the Full BAB does get +4 to the attack which may cause some more attacks to land or more power attack damage. But seriously though that 20% more damage or 33% more damage is only useful if the monster has enough hit points to absorb this extra punishment, yet not enough more hitpoints that the marginal extra output is finally able to kill it.

If we are talking LVL 15 then the Full BAB and 3/4 BAB actually has the same number of attacks but the Full BAB is +4 to the attack once again.

And if we are talking LVL 11 to LVL 14 we are talking 3 attacks vs 2 attacks, aka up to 0 to 50% more damage (but less so with haste and other effects.) Then again the cleric vs the paladin has 6th level spells at level 11 vs 4th level spells and at level 13 it is 7th level spells vs 5th level spells.

-----

Which is better (without prestige and all that) is dependent in a contextual matter. Sometimes being 2 spell levels ahead is worth losing an extra attack, and sometimes you need that extra attack.

[Psyren]

Who plays to 20? Lets assume level 16 as the upper bounds or level 17. For I am willing to bet money that less than 5% of games reach level 20, aka a tail risk scenario.

*snip*

The thing about BAB is that it has implications no matter what level you end at. Say your cap is 16 instead of 20, that means the Bard has been spending all but the last two of his levels with two attacks or less, while the Paladin has only had to do that for 10. 4 levels in game time can be weeks, even months of real time living with a big difference like that. My only point is that it's easy to downplay the importance of that if it hasn't mattered much at your table, but that experience isn't necessarily universal.

You also raise an excellent point with Power Attack - the more attack bonus you have to spare, the more you can convert into extra damage once you have enough to hit reliably, especially using a 2H weapon. This damage gets multiplied on a crit, so the impact to your DPR can be significant.


Which is better (without prestige and all that) is dependent in a contextual matter. Sometimes being 2 spell levels ahead is worth losing an extra attack, and sometimes you need that extra attack.

Totally agreed, which is why removing that spell level difference without addressing other differences (like BAB) should be considered carefully. I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying handwaving/dismissing it is probably not the best idea.

[NigelWalmsley]

Core, we are left with Fighter and Barbarian as full-BaB classes with zero spellcasting (since we're assuming Rangers will get the same spell progression as Paladins). They have always been known to need a fix, especially the Fighter, but that's a wholly different topic.

This is an important point. This fix may well make the Fighter sad. But guess what? The Fighter is already sad! Whether a particular buff is a good idea depends on whether you think that buff moves the class closer to or further from the desired balance point, not whether there are other classes that also need buffs. If this Paladin buff makes the Paladin do what we want, the fact that the Fighter is bad isn't a reason to not do it, it's a reason to also buff the Fighter.


I think this justification is pretty poor; Paladins have class features aside from their spellcasting too, and a Paladin can go become a Divine Crusader or Apostle of Peace.

Divine Crusader and Apostle of Peace are not good counter-examples, because the Paladin isn't particularly well-suited to getting into either. Whereas there are very few base classes other than Bard that can meet the requirements for Sublime Chord, which include "has Bardic Music".

But even that is rather besides the point. Yes, the Paladin also gets class features. That doesn't mean they're as good as the Bard's. And even if they were, that would just mean that this particular 3/4-BAB 6-Caster was worse than the Paladin. To which I say: so what? Many classes are worse than the this hypothetical Paladin, and many are better. Even if we grant that Paladin > Bard in this case, it's by a smaller margin than Bard > Paladin right now. Which means we've made the game better overall.

But again, even that isn't really what was asked. The original question was "why are there *any* classes with 3/4 BAB and 6th-level casting?" not "why is there a Bard" if you do this. So you'd have to show not just that the Bard's class features aren't enough better than the Paladin's to make up for +1 to hit every four levels and sometimes an extra attack, but that no set of class features could possibly exist that does so. Seems like kind of a tall order.


I think you're dismissing this too - 5 points is equivalent to a +5 weapon, and more importantly your 4th iterative is unlocked at +16, which can cause an outsized difference in your damage per round once buffed enough to land (never mind if it crits).

It's not equivalent to a +5 weapon. A +5 weapon also gives +5 to damage. Also, at the relevant level, you can turn any weapon into a +5 weapon with a single cast of Greater Magic Weapon, so what you're really saying is that it's slightly worse than a 3rd level spell.

16 BAB gets you an iterative, but if you're buffed enough for it to land, you're probably also buffed enough that the +5 to hit doesn't really matter. And while it's true that an extra iterative attack represents additional damage, so does getting a per-attack damage buff (like Inspire Courage).


(a) IC stacks with BAB anyway meaning the Paladin stays ahead,

No it doesn't. It means that in a party with a Paladin, the Bard provides even more value. An ability you use to buff someone else is value you're providing, not value they're providing.


(b) the simple fact is that the full BAB class doesn't have to IC to close that gap if it's built into their passive progression.

Well, sure. But who cares? If the end result is that you have a bonus of +30 to hit, it doesn't particularly matter how you got there. It's not like your attack "doesn't count" if some of the to-hit came from Inspire Courage. The class (really, the character) is an overall package. The fact that the Bard gets his numbers from different places than the Paladin doesn't give him different numbers.

[Psyren]

*snip*

But again, even that isn't really what was asked. The original question was "why are there *any* classes with 3/4 BAB and 6th-level casting?" not "why is there a Bard" if you do this. So you'd have to show not just that the Bard's class features aren't enough better than the Paladin's to make up for +1 to hit every four levels and sometimes an extra attack, but that no set of class features could possibly exist that does so. Seems like kind of a tall order.

It would be, but we also don't have the specific spells being given to the Paladin. Planar Ally for example would be quite a jump in power compared to Bard 6ths, as would Righteous Might.


It's not equivalent to a +5 weapon. A +5 weapon also gives +5 to damage. Also, at the relevant level, you can turn any weapon into a +5 weapon with a single cast of Greater Magic Weapon, so what you're really saying is that it's slightly worse than a 3rd level spell.

16 BAB gets you an iterative, but if you're buffed enough for it to land, you're probably also buffed enough that the +5 to hit doesn't really matter. And while it's true that an extra iterative attack represents additional damage, so does getting a per-attack damage buff (like Inspire Courage).

It matters if you can convert excess to-hit into even more damage - which is exactly what Power Attack does, letting you swing for the fences on the guaranteed hits while focusing more on accuracy for the dicier (natch) ones. And this bonus damage is multiplied with a 2H weapon, and multiplied yet again on a crit. The net result is more DPR than the GM might be planning for, and I haven't even added the Paladin's own major DPR increase (Smite) to the mix. Again, not saying it absolutely shouldn't be done, but it's worth thinking about and weighing against the rest of the table.


No it doesn't. It means that in a party with a Paladin, the Bard provides even more value. An ability you use to buff someone else is value you're providing, not value they're providing.
...
Well, sure. But who cares? If the end result is that you have a bonus of +30 to hit, it doesn't particularly matter how you got there. It's not like your attack "doesn't count" if some of the to-hit came from Inspire Courage. The class (really, the character) is an overall package. The fact that the Bard gets his numbers from different places than the Paladin doesn't give him different numbers.

It does if one requires actions and has limited uses/day, while the other doesn't. And they do have different numbers, because the Paladin gets Smite on top of the better chassis that the Bard is using IC to catch up to.

To be clear, I'm not saying the Paladin is as powerful a class as the Bard (in 3.5 anyway; in PF that question is a lot trickier) but even if it's not, a Paladin with 5th- and 6th-level cleric spells and full caster level might well be superior rather than on par.

[NigelWalmsley]

It would be, but we also don't have the specific spells being given to the Paladin. Planar Ally for example would be quite a jump in power compared to Bard 6ths, as would Righteous Might.

I don't understand how you think this is responsive to the part you're quoting. You've pulled out the part where I say specifically that even if you were to prove that this proposed Paladin fix is better than the Bard, it would make the other guy right, and then you respond with an argument about how this proposed Paladin fix might be better than the Bard.


It matters if you can convert excess to-hit into even more damage

Yes, you could build your character to be a Power Attacker. That is a thing you can be, and it values having high BAB. But you could also build your character to specialize in TWF or Archery, in which case you'd prefer the bonus damage from Inspire Courage. There are a lot of different builds that exist, and they value different kinds of bonuses. You can't show that the Paladin is better than the Bard just by talking about how the Paladin does stuff, you have to also talk about how the Bard does stuff and why that stuff isn't as good.


The net result is more DPR than the GM might be planning for

That's a claim that is both vacuous and irrelevant. Any amount of damage "might" be more than the DM is planning for, and it doesn't matter if the Paladin does a large pile of damage, it matters if he does more than a Bard. Specifically, if he does more than a Bard that is optimizing for damage (assuming, of course, that we think "optimizing for damage" is the best thing a Bard can do -- it might well be that the best Bard builds are Caster or Minionmancer Bards).


It does if one requires actions and has limited uses/day, while the other doesn't.

The Bard gets twenty daily uses of Inspire Courage, and they all last "as long as you want". Yes, there's technically a daily limit, but in practice what it means is that the Bard can lower their to-hit for extra utility options, which is a strength rather than a weakness.


And they do have different numbers, because the Paladin gets Smite on top of the better chassis that the Bard is using IC to catch up to.

The 3.5 Paladin's smite is not actually that impressive. It applies to a single attack (not even a full round), the damage bonus is pretty small, and the to-hit bonus requires you to be MAD. It might make up for the bonus damage from Inspire Courage on the rounds where it is used, if there's no one else in the party getting the Inspire Courage bonus and the Bard isn't especially optimized.

[Psyren]

I'm not actually disagreeing with you outright Nigel - especially since this discussion is focused on 3.5 paladins and bards, which I don't really care enough about to die on a hill over - just pointing out that it's worth thinking through the implications of buffing a class that can already do decent damage on its own even further. Yes, you can optimize a 3.5 bard to outdamage a full-BAB class, especially when you factor in groupwide damage increases rather than just the player - but group damage isn't really relevant to party concerns as the GM can just crank up monster hitpoints to compensate if the fights are ending too quickly, something that's more difficult when you've got one high damage class (like an ubercharger at the extreme end) in an otherwise normal group.

You're also right about 3.5 smite being one attack, but that attack can be one of the lower iteratives the Bard doesn't get, causing it to hit - and remember that smite's attack bonus gets added to a crit confirmation roll too. Lastly, they're not that MAD either - 14 Cha before items is fine, especially since you're also getting it to saving throws, combined with your d10 HD you can actually skimp on Con more than some other martial builds would, say only picking up a 12 or even a 10 there.