Why was the paladin caster level nerfed?

[redking]

Paladin has a half paladin level caster level. Why was it necessary to do this? It seems to be that having caster level = paladin level doesn't overpower the paladin at all. What is going on?

[Tzardok]

It's supposed to be a knight with a bit of magic. Why should it not be a literal half-caster? The other "warrior with a bit of magic" classes (ranger and hexblade) do work the same way.

[Biggus]

At a guess, it was because of the "having good BAB and heavy armor proficiency and casting is dangerously overpowered" mentality that existed in early 3E, observe the Hexblade in CW and the Duskblade in PHB2 two and a half years later. The Hexblade is even weaker than the Paladin and Ranger, while the Duskblade is a fairly well-balanced tier 3 class.

In PF1 the Paladin and Ranger got caster level equal to class level minus 3 instead of half class level, and nothing broke. I've seen people discussing giving them fifth and even sixth level spells. In my own games I use the PF version and it works fine.

[gijoemike]

It matched the same spell/leve template we got on ranger. Which is equally stupid. It is not needed at all. Level - 3 (dead levels) works fine for pally and ranger. What makes a true 1/2 caster is the limited level on spell level and limited spell selection.

[ciopo]

fwiw, I like that the caster level is class level/2 , it makes using (higher) wands and scrolls easy.

I would not like the DC to be 14 instead of 7 to do restoration early on my paladin

[heavyfuel]

The Hexblade is even weaker than the Paladin and Ranger

Tbf, that's more because Ranger and Paladin are Core, so they got a crap-ton of spells/ACFs/class specific feats that made them stronger than HB. Hexblade is pretty on par with "Core+CW only" Pally/Ranger

[RandomPeasant]

It was nerfed because the designers thought full BAB was really good for some reason. The Paladin could be CL = Level and that would not make it overpowered, or even all that much more powerful. It mostly just makes it harder to dispel their buffs, and that doesn't matter all that much. It's still fundamentally a class that casts cure serious wounds at 14th level.

[noce]

Half caster level is something I hate on half casters, that cripples them even more.

Duration of certain spells is so short that they're not worth the spell slot nor the standard action to cast.
And even instantaneous or fixed duration spells are impacted: for example Divine Favor lasts 1 minute, but only gives +1 until level 12, and tops its bonus at paladin level 18...
On top of that, spell access is delayed for no reason, to the point that a lvl 9 ranger has 0 slots to prepare cure light wounds, that heals 1d8+4. At level 9.

Splat books partially addressed half casting classes, with additional spells tailored for them that are mostly unimpacted by low caster level, but at the beginning of 3.5 and in core only games being a half caster is little more than having access to wands.

[Arkhios]

At a guess, it was because of the "having good BAB and heavy armor proficiency and casting is dangerously overpowered" mentality that existed in early 3E, observe the Hexblade in CW and the Duskblade in PHB2 two and a half years later. The Hexblade is even weaker than the Paladin and Ranger, while the Duskblade is a fairly well-balanced tier 3 class.

In PF1 the Paladin and Ranger got caster level equal to class level minus 3 instead of half class level, and nothing broke. I've seen people discussing giving them fifth and even sixth level spells. In my own games I use the PF version and it works fine.

Yeah, pathfinder's approach makes a whole lot of sense, too. If you don't have access to spells before a certain level, then why would you have a caster level anything higher than your level of access indicates. Your spellcasting begins at fourth level. It makes all the sense in the world that at fourth level, your spellcasting level is 1.


In all honesty, I have always felt that 3.P "caster level - spell slot" disparity is ridiculous, and arbitrarily complicated.

If you're a full caster, you get access to 0th through 9th level spells at 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, and 17th levels, respectively. (even that is stupid, because technically you get access to two levels of spells at 1st caster level, for some reason, and you don't get more spell levels at 19th level).

"standard" full casters, such as cleric, druid, and wizard are doing fine, I guess, but "non-standard" full casters such as bards or sorcerers have this utterly arbitrary progression that just doesn't make sense.
They claim to be full-casters in that they get a caster level that is up to their class level, but they differ from the standard spell level progression by arbitrary methods. Sorcerers get 1st level spells at 1st level, as they should, but starting from 2nd level spells, for some reason they are delayed by one class level. Why?! (whyyyyyyyy?!)

Or bards, holy cow; they too have a full caster level, but they get only up to 6th level spells. In 3.0-3.5, as long as they have high enough charisma score to receive bonus spell slots, they get 1st level spells at 2nd class level, 2nd level spells at 4th class level, and 3rd level spells at 7th class level, and every 3 levels thereafter, but up to 6th level spells. By their caster level they should have at least same progression as sorcerer, but why the heck not a progression of the standard full casters? It's just stupid! At least PF1 more logically granted them their first level spells known at 1st level! Sheesh.

Alas, I don't have any other solution to offer than just granting bards three more levels known, and make them actual full casters. But I guess that would make them too powerful given that they also get a lot of class features other than spells, compared to clerics, and wizards. But, then again, druids get quite lot as well. So, really? Would it make any difference?

Likewise, just remove the nonsensical one level delay from sorcerers. It doesn't break anything. Sorcerers would still have more spell slots than wizards :D

[Mordante]

It was nerfed because the designers thought full BAB was really good for some reason. The Paladin could be CL = Level and that would not make it overpowered, or even all that much more powerful. It mostly just makes it harder to dispel their buffs, and that doesn't matter all that much. It's still fundamentally a class that casts cure serious wounds at 14th level.

I think it doesn't hurt the Paladin so much. IMHO is mainly a melee character with a splash of casting. If a Paladin, Hexblade, & Ranger become full caster it will just increase the power gap to non-casting classes like monk and fighter.

[Gnaeus]

Hexblade is ranked below fighter and very close to monk. Should we not fix monk because it will make it better than hexblade?

And core paladin was T5. It advances a bit above fighter because of battle blessing and non core spells. Giving full CL or CL-3 isn't going to change much. Ranger hit T4 because it had a splash of utility. So if you fix fighter skill points, you can fix ranger casting.

[Biggus]

I think it doesn't hurt the Paladin so much. IMHO is mainly a melee character with a splash of casting.



Giving full CL or CL-3 isn't going to change much.

It doesn't change much at low-mid levels, but it makes a lot of difference at high levels. As well as caster-level-based spells like GMW suddenly becoming worthwhile, a lot of their best spells are buffs which are very easy to dispel if they only have half caster level.

[RandomPeasant]

I think it doesn't hurt the Paladin so much. IMHO is mainly a melee character with a splash of casting. If a Paladin, Hexblade, & Ranger become full caster it will just increase the power gap to non-casting classes like monk and fighter.

No it won't. It will also decrease the gap to casting classes like sorcerer and cleric.

[Rleonardh]

Fighter monk ranger paladin barbarian in core are weak, with the additional books they become good dips and nothing more really.

Good core builds that weren't to bad.

Paladin 2 Sorcerer 6 Eldritch Knight 10 sorcerer 2. Only level 8 spells but better hp and saves

Fighter 2 wizard 6 Eldritch Knight 10 wizard 2. Usually go archery feats and 9th level spells.

Rouge 2 ranger 4 rogue 14
Great skill monkey and allowed twf or archery

Most fighter builds ended at 12, pretty much had all feats you could want.

Barbarian really didn't do well maybe a few levels for rage than go fighter

Monks at best took tumble and try to get to enemy spell casters to grapple

Rouge was decent if dm gave him time to shine

Paladin just why, cleric better and the code of paladins... 5th edition did alignment better

Ranger with favored enemies was campaign specific, you could take a few as you went up levels.

So basically bards clerics sorcerers and wizards where the best.
Really didn't change even with additional books. Imho

[Darg]

Paladin code of conduct isn't that hard to deal with, nor is it as strict as people like to believe. Favored enemy is pretty bad though. You get 5 favored enemies but only have 4 upgrades to split between the 5. So at 20 you could have +10/2/2/2/2 or +4/4/4/4/2, etc. One thing that paladin gets that cleric doesn't is bless weapon. Auto confirmation is brutal.

OP, paladin caster level being halved is solely out of fear for martials being too strong. The game was balanced for a group of friends who want to actually roleplay and play as a team, not optimize using meta knowledge outside the bounds of their character. In that kind of environment, martials do have the capability of stealing the show even unoptimized themselves. Game designers tend to design games to make it as accessible as possible. Sometimes they can go too far in any direction, especially when they only play test to like level 6 and can't out think the 10s or 100s of thousands of players among whom are people who like to push the mechanical boundaries of a game.

[gadren]

"nerfed" implies that they had better spellcasting before 3e? That is not the case.
I'm playing a BEMI D&D game and back then paladin's got spellcasting as a cleric of 1/3 their level.
Iirc, 2e paladins didn't get casting until 9th level.

I mean don't get me wrong, I think ranger and paladin are more balanced with more casting (the mystic ranger variant is perfect), but it wasn't a "nerf".

[Mordante]

Hexblade is ranked below fighter and very close to monk. Should we not fix monk because it will make it better than hexblade?

And core paladin was T5. It advances a bit above fighter because of battle blessing and non core spells. Giving full CL or CL-3 isn't going to change much. Ranger hit T4 because it had a splash of utility. So if you fix fighter skill points, you can fix ranger casting.

I do think so classes could have been updated in 3.5. However I think people are TOO obsessed about class tiers. In the parties I play there are characters of each tier normally and so far this has never lead to any issues. Mostly because people do not play optimized characters. DnD is first and foremost a Role Playing Game.

[Gnaeus]

I do think so classes could have been updated in 3.5. However I think people are TOO obsessed about class tiers. In the parties I play there are characters of each tier normally and so far this has never lead to any issues. Mostly because people do not play optimized characters. DnD is first and foremost a Role Playing Game.

You should argue about that with the guy who was concerned about the partial casters being better than fighter and monk. Oh wait, that's you, advancing two mutually exclusive positions back to back in the same thread.

Also, your premise is false. The tier system is optimization neutral. Cleric or Druid crush monk at any optimization level

[RandomPeasant]

The game was balanced for a group of friends who want to actually roleplay and play as a team, not optimize using meta knowledge outside the bounds of their character. In that kind of environment, martials do have the capability of stealing the show even unoptimized themselves.

"The game was designed for people who play as a team, therefore the classes that have no ability to support their teammates are fine" is certainly a take.


Also, your premise is false. The tier system is optimization neutral. Cleric or Druid crush monk at any optimization level

The tier system isn't optimization-neutral, it's supposed to represent averages across expected ranges of optimization. While Druid or Cleric are still good when played poorly, and Monk has a really low optimization floor, there are plenty of examples of classes that would be ranked higher or lower if you focused on low-op or high-op games. Just as there are classes that would be ranked higher or lower if you focused on low-level or high-level games.

[Darg]

"The game was designed for people who play as a team, therefore the classes that have no ability to support their teammates are fine" is certainly a take.

Way out of context. If trying to align me with a narrative I haven't made in this thread, just know those aren't my words.

[Mordante]

"The game was designed for people who play as a team, therefore the classes that have no ability to support their teammates are fine" is certainly a take.

The tier system isn't optimization-neutral, it's supposed to represent averages across expected ranges of optimization. While Druid or Cleric are still good when played poorly, and Monk has a really low optimization floor, there are plenty of examples of classes that would be ranked higher or lower if you focused on low-op or high-op games. Just as there are classes that would be ranked higher or lower if you focused on low-level or high-level games.

Agree 100%

The Wizard in my group get out-damaged by everyone in the party including, the Fighter, Monk and the weird Sorcerer/Shadowdancer/rogue hybrid.

[Gnaeus]

The tier system isn't optimization-neutral, it's supposed to represent averages across expected ranges of optimization. While Druid or Cleric are still good when played poorly, and Monk has a really low optimization floor, there are plenty of examples of classes that would be ranked higher or lower if you focused on low-op or high-op games. Just as there are classes that would be ranked higher or lower if you focused on low-level or high-level games.

On the one hand, I oversimplified. On the other hand, that's just wrong. The tier system measures comparative class flexibility, which generally translates into power with equivalent optimization, focusing mostly on levels 6-15, least on 16+. It works equally well in a low mid or high op game, as long as all the players are using roughly equal optimization. Everything else above is made up




The Wizard in my group get out-damaged by everyone in the party including, the Fighter, Monk and the weird Sorcerer/Shadowdancer/rogue hybrid.

First, out damaged isn't a very good benchmark. If a fighter walks into an encounter and can do twice as much damage as a wizard, but the wizard can cast competitive SoLs on all 3 saves or field minions that can solo the threat or auto avoid the encounter that's not an indicator of the fighter's superiority.

Second, Mordante's games are total outliers that dump half the rules most of us play by. When you rewrite big chunks of rules, outcomes differ. I feel confident that I could dig into the specifics of those characters and uncover why your wizard is underperforming compared with a monk, but I have heard enough of your campaign rules to not want to know. I strongly suspect that there is either something most of us would consider bizarre about the wizard (like "he only casts illusion and evocation spells") or when I dig into spell specifics I would start running into "oh we don't use that" a lot, like the way you regard item crafting as NPC feats.

But most importantly, if you aren't concerned about differing class power, then the argument that giving hexblade full CL will increase their (nonexistent) existing advantage over monks doesn't make sense. At best you could argue that the community concensus is wrong and that half casters are under tiered (even if you avoid using that word). And heck, once you apply your campaign rules they may be. Certainly your no WBL should give a real advantage to any caster over any non caster. Most of us are discussing games that lie within the majority of the rules and game parameters as written. But regardless, you don't get to argue about increased class imbalance without admitting the existence of class imbalance.

[RandomPeasant]

On the one hand, I oversimplified. On the other hand, that's just wrong. The tier system measures comparative class flexibility, which generally translates into power with equivalent optimization, focusing mostly on levels 6-15, least on 16+. It works equally well in a low mid or high op game, as long as all the players are using roughly equal optimization. Everything else above is made up

No, that's just wrong. The tier system doesn't measure "flexibility", it measures power. That's why the Incarnate (one of the most flexible classes in the game) is T4. And it's just not true that the tiers are the same in low, mid, or high op games. As a trivial example, it is possible to build a Sorcerer who knows only spells a Warmage knows, but knows less of them. If you tiered the classes at that optimization level, it would be flatly impossible to justify the Sorcerer's place in a higher tier than the Warmage. It's fair to say the tiers are mostly consistent across optimization, but I could probably name a dozen things that are different at a sufficiently high or low level of optimization.

[sleepyphoenixx]

On the one hand, I oversimplified. On the other hand, that's just wrong. The tier system measures comparative class flexibility, which generally translates into power with equivalent optimization, focusing mostly on levels 6-15, least on 16+. It works equally well in a low mid or high op game, as long as all the players are using roughly equal optimization. Everything else above is made up

The tier system measures theoretical potential to affect the game, both in power and number of situations where you can apply it.
Something that's powerful but not versatile generally falls in tier 3. Most martial adepts are at that level of power (good at combat, not good at much else).
A class is only tier 4 or below if it lacks both power and versatility.

That's assuming a certain minimum level of optimization though. Potential only matters if you use it.

A wizard who only prepares Fireball is not tier 1. A cleric that only casts healing spells is not tier 1.
They'll both be worse off than the fighter or rogue at that level of optimization despite having a much higher tier.

[RandomPeasant]

A class is only tier 4 or below if it lacks both power and versatility.

I would love for someone who believes this to explain to me why the Incarnate is T4. That class is incredibly versatile. They have access to their entire list of soulmelds every day, they can reshape their soulmelds during the day, and they can reallocate essentia between rounds. But they're weak because none of their abilities are very good. Versatility can matter, but the idea that it matters enough to deserve to be called out separately is an aspect of tier discussions I've never understood.


They'll both be worse off than the fighter or rogue at that level of optimization despite having a much higher tier.

This is what I mean, though I'd say that a blaster Wizard is still as effective or moreso than similarly low-op Rogues and Fighters. But a healer Cleric isn't much better than a Healer, and that class is T3 because people apparently really like Sanctified spells. A lot of classes in T1 have very low floors, even discounting active efforts to anti-optimize your character. An Archivist that is not taking advantage of their ability to learn any divine spell is in a pretty rough spot, as they are essentially a substantially worse Cleric. An Artificer who is not effectively managing their crafting resources is similarly weakened. It is worth noting that I think the Druid rises in a low-op situation, as any Druid with a high enough Wisdom to cast spells has an animal companion, wild shape, and the ability to turn whatever garbage spells they prepared into summon nature's ally. That's a very high floor, even without Natural Spell.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I would love for someone who believes this to explain to me why the Incarnate is T4. That class is incredibly versatile. They have access to their entire list of soulmelds every day, they can reshape their soulmelds during the day, and they can reallocate essentia between rounds. But they're weak because none of their abilities are very good. Versatility can matter, but the idea that it matters enough to deserve to be called out separately is an aspect of tier discussions I've never understood.


Because it lacks the power to perform well in any role. It's very versatile for a non-caster but it has nothing where it performs better than adequate.
T3 requires that you perform well in one role and have some versatility to deal with off-role encounters. The Incarnate list simply lacks the power.

Tier 1: does everything well
Tier 2: does anything well, but not in one build
Tier 3: does something well and a few things adequately
Tier 4: does some things adequately but nothing particularly well OR does something well but has little to offer beyond that
Tier 5: struggles to perform adequately at its own role and has little to offer beyond that
Tier 6: fails to do much of anything worthwhile

Swordsages are T3. They kick ass in combat, get a decent toolkit from maneuvers and have enough skills and good class skills to do some skillmonkeying on the side.
Incarnates simply aren't on that level so they are not T3.

If power was all that mattered uberchargers wouldn't be T4. But they are, since they can only apply that power in very limited circumstances and don't really have anything else.

[RandomPeasant]

Because it lacks the power to perform well in any role. It's very versatile for a non-caster but it has nothing where it performs better than adequate.

But that's not the standard you advanced. You said "A class is only tier 4 or below if it lacks both power and versatility.". The Incarnate does not lack versatility by any definition of the term I would consider reasonable.


T3 requires that you perform well in one role and have some versatility to deal with off-role encounters. The Incarnate list simply lacks the power.

What versatility does a Warmage have? What specific role does a Factotum perform well in? Is it really unimaginable that you could have a class that was better than the Duskblade but worse than the Bard by virtue of performance in a narrow range of situations?


If power was all that mattered uberchargers wouldn't be T4. But they are, since they can only apply that power in very limited circumstances and don't really have anything else.

But they would, by precisely the "tier doesn't change by optimization" argument Gnaeus was making (which I don't think is flat wrong, just overstated). The comparison point for an ubercharger isn't a random Wizard, it's someone abusing planar binding, and that character is capable of being even more powerful than the ubercharger.

[noce]

Back on topic, I have a question related to caster level.
How does a full casting PRC interacts with paladin casting?
Say paladin 6 / PRC 10. I think it casts as a paladin 16, but with a caster level of 13 (3+10), but always had a doubt about my ruling.

[ciopo]

I believe that's a problem of having "caster level" refer to two different entities.

One entity is the number plugged in when caster level is referenced in variables.

The other entity is "caster level" as in "we have the casting capabilities of [class] level X".

Most PrC that advances casting interact with the second, not the first, and I would shorthand their "+ 1 to a X caster level" as "when determining your casting capabilities for class X, count yourself as one level higher".

So paladin 6/prc 10 has the casting capabilities of a paladin 16, and a caster level of 8, because paladin caster level is defined as "paladin level/2"

With the notable exception of practiced spellcaster, which interact with that first entity. Paladin 6/prc10 with practiced spellcaster has a caster level of 12 to me.

[sleepyphoenixx]

But that's not the standard you advanced. You said "A class is only tier 4 or below if it lacks both power and versatility.". The Incarnate does not lack versatility by any definition of the term I would consider reasonable.
The tier system measures versatility by the number of different challenges you can deal with. What situations can the Incarnate deal with with any measure of competence? Not many.
Having access to a lot of skills is still limited to skills. Skills alone don't make you versatile. They're a gimmick, not a role.


But they would, by precisely the "tier doesn't change by optimization" argument Gnaeus was making (which I don't think is flat wrong, just overstated). The comparison point for an ubercharger isn't a random Wizard, it's someone abusing planar binding, and that character is capable of being even more powerful than the ubercharger.

The tier system measures your ability to deal with the challenges the game throws at you. It's not a competition. It's ranking the ability to contribute.
The ubercharger contributes to combat (if he can charge) and nothing else. It doesn't matter if he does 200, 500 or 2000 damage, the point is that he can meaningfully contribute, but only to a very limited set of encounters (combats where he can charge).

The wizard can meaningfully contribute to pretty much any situation you'd care to name with the right spell selection. That's why he's tier 1 even if most of them don't do ubercharger damage - it doesn't matter if he's a battlefield controller, summoner, buffer or gish, he can meaningfully contribute, which is all that matters.
He can also contribute to stealth (invis etc), social encounters (enchantments), information gathering (divinations) and so on.

That's why the Incarnate is T4. It doesn't contribute much to combat and skills aren't all that impactful in most situations. It doesn't contribute meaningfully.
Being versatile doesn't make you T3 if all it does it allow you to suck in different ways.

[Mordante]

The good thing about the Tier system and character optimization is that they are virtually unknown outside of this and maybe one or two other websites. Most people don't run roleplaying games as an Excel exercise.

[Darg]

Back on topic, I have a question related to caster level.
How does a full casting PRC interacts with paladin casting?
Say paladin 6 / PRC 10. I think it casts as a paladin 16, but with a caster level of 13 (3+10), but always had a doubt about my ruling.

PrCs generally will say something to the effect of "as if she had also gained a level in a spellcasting class she belonged to before she added the prestige class." Because of this it's as if you are progressing in the spellcasting class. So your paladin 6/PRC 10 would cast as a paladin with a level of 16, but generally have a caster level of 8. Some classes ignore this like greenstar adept or hierophant, but those are the exception, not the rule.

We could also get into how if the spellcasting progressing class feature doesn't say it increases your caster level it doesn't, but most groups play/rule that it does anyway so it wouldn't really be helpful and would add confusion.