PDA

View Full Version : What's the point of playing Paladin?



Akisa
2008-10-08, 01:39 PM
Paladin's are basically warriors with the ability with a 1-4 smites per day. They're MAD characters so they would have less str then barbarians and fight which means are less likely to hit opponents even evil opponents. Since smites are so few paladins are forced to save up their smites for the bigger evil or waste them on lesser evil and be a warrior with better saves vs BBEG.

You can say you should pick paladin to roleplay a holy warrior. This would true but Cleric can play like holy warrior and be far more effective with self buffs and be generally more useful.

BTW this thread is about 3.5e

Break
2008-10-08, 01:46 PM
If one prefers the Paladin mechanics for whatever reason (not having an interest in optimization, for example), or simply likes the default flavor, that's enough reason to play one.

There are those who don't think the mechanics are a good enough reason to sway them from any particular class choice, after all.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-08, 01:47 PM
Exactly why most people play variants or rewrites (such as my Paladin rewrite).

Crow
2008-10-08, 01:47 PM
What's the point of playing a wizard?

Seriously, what's the point of playing a role-playing game. If you have fun playing it, does it matter? If it's not for you, nobody is making you play a Paladin.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-08, 01:49 PM
Well, you've hit upon a classic problem of 3e - Replacement Classes.

Technically, the Cleric is a better class to take for lots of roles, but mechanically speaking, you will be making a trade off for proactive powers vs. reactive powers. Paladins gain a variety of built-in special abilities (immunity to fear and disease, CHA bonus to saves, etc.) which make them permanently durable. Now a well-buffed Cleric can meet or exceed all of these abilities, but only the Paladin never has to worry about being scared away from a fight, or suffering the effects of many diseases. Plus, their CHA bonus to all saves makes them pretty tanky against spells and such.

But the main reason to choose a Paladin over a Cleric is RP based. 3e Paladins are paragons of Goodness and Law, while Clerics are held to a lower standard. In Good towns, everyone should respect a Paladin and respect his judgment in many matters - if he can lay on hands, he must be Good. Clerics tend more to their co-religionists and may not even be Good or Lawful. In essence, the 3e Paladin is the Paladin Code; if you want to RP such an individual, no Cleric can be as unimpeachably Good as a Paladin, by RAW.

Proven_Paradox
2008-10-08, 01:49 PM
I love the -concept- of the paladin. It's a difficult thing to explain, but there's something nebulous and awesome about the concept of a character who's dedication and faith in his cause lends him martial prowess.

The paladin class is supposed to represent that achetype. However, as you've rightly pointed out, you're better off with a well-buffed cleric. This is why I personally NEVER play a core paladin past level five (the class is actually pretty okay up to that point). However, there are at least two good and widely accepted paladin re-writes around (one here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=761045) and one here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33551)) that takes the concept and makes it worth playing to 20. There's also the Tome of Battle's Crusader. Make him lawful good, and the flavor is essentially the same. If none of these are available, I'll just make a different character.

Both of these are surpassed by a proper clerizilla, but to me, it doesn't quite capture the proper paladin flavor provided by the three solutions in the previous paragraph. It's not something I'm able to readily explain, though... Paladin, to me, represents a devotion to good and order that exceeds that which a similar cleric represents. The ultimate zealot, completely without doubt of his cause or fear of those who would oppose it. It's an image I find compelling, likely because it's something so very different from myself.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 01:52 PM
I always like to play Paladin types, but I never have played a Paladin... or a cleric for that matter. I just don't like the feel of the Paladin mechanics. Its stunted spell-list always felt tacked on, I didn't want a mount, I wanted to shoot the holy wrath of god with fire from my sword. Smite didn't deal fire damage. I was very upset about that back when.

Talya
2008-10-08, 01:52 PM
A well built mid-to-higher level paladin is actually reasonably effective compared to other melee types, until you start throwing in TOB classes.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-08, 01:55 PM
A well built mid-to-higher level paladin is actually reasonably effective compared to other melee types, until you start throwing in TOB classes.

Do you count Cleric as a melee class? :smalltongue:

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-08, 01:55 PM
I never had the patience for casters, or for huge feat combinations. Paladin/Bard and Paladin/Pious Templar are among my favorite character builds. Huge saves and tons of Charisma synergy with some divine feats yes plz.

Edit: Oh, and their fluff kicks ass, especially in FR.

Ponce
2008-10-08, 01:57 PM
Paladin4 is great! Dip into it with your crusader.

Talya
2008-10-08, 02:00 PM
Do you count Cleric as a melee class? :smalltongue:

No. As decent as they can be in melee, a cleric who chooses to be good at melee isn't doing his job.

*smacks her party cleric who always thinks he's a fighter when we really need a cleric.*

Stupendous_Man
2008-10-08, 02:03 PM
Bah, healing can be handled with wands.

Tempest Fennac
2008-10-08, 02:04 PM
That's why I'd never bother with DMM to be honest (I'd sooner use the feats for healing due to other characters being able to fight well). And Wands may not always be available depending on the setting.

Talya
2008-10-08, 02:04 PM
Bah, healing can be handled with wands.

I'm not talking about healing.

Clerics may not quite be Batman, but they can certainly make a valiant attempt at it, and in ways that wizards can't even duplicate.

Tempest Fennac
2008-10-08, 02:12 PM
What sort of things exactly would you prefer the group's Cleric to do, Talya?

SmartAlec
2008-10-08, 02:14 PM
I'd be curious as to what kind of God they were a Cleric of, too. A Cleric of a war-god busting heads makes perfect sense!

monty
2008-10-08, 02:14 PM
That's why I'd never bother with DMM to be honest (I'd sooner use the feats for healing due to other characters being able to fight well).

DMM Persist Mass Lesser Vigor? DMM Chain Greater Magic Weapon? There's lots of uses for it that don't rely on making yourself awesome.

Spiryt
2008-10-08, 02:16 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but how exaclty do you want to have so high saves as a Barbarian, not to mention spells?

Talya
2008-10-08, 02:22 PM
What sort of things exactly would you prefer the group's Cleric to do, Talya?

Spellcasting -- buffing the party, attacking/hindering the enemy with spells (Save or suck/lose/die, area effects), controlling the battlefield, and occasionally, when absolutely necessary, saving everyone's life with that mass cure/heal spell.

The reason clerics are considered in that "holy trinity" of Wizard/Cleric/Druid is not because they can bust noggins well with hammers. Melees can do that wonderfully too...and frankly, they can do it better than the self-buffed cleric can if the cleric buffs them instead of himself. A lot of people seem to view the cleric's spell list as "How to make the cleric a better fighter!" The point is, the cleric can already be a pretty good wizard. Why should he try to be a fighter?

I understand there are character concepts for the battle-cleric, and I'm all for acting in character first, however, it seems to me that if your cleric decides to become Mr. Melee-God, you need another cleric who decides to be a cleric.

Enguhl
2008-10-08, 02:22 PM
I personally enjoy paladins quite a bit, they are one of my favorite classes. Role playing wise its because you get to be a holy warrior, traveling the lands and destroying evil. Mechanically they get some decent abilities too. Lay on hands, divine grace, smite is alright, summoning mounts, turning. I personally think that they are a pretty well-rounded class.

Tempest Fennac
2008-10-08, 02:27 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Tayla. That is a good point, Monty (I'd forgotten about those uses to be honest). The only drawback is that it would still take at least 3 feats to get 1 DMM ability (to be fair, I have trouble picking feats anyway, so that wouldn't be a bad choice if Glowsticks were availabe). Do Magic Weapon spells stack with Weapon enhancements?

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 02:29 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Tayla. That is a good point, Monty (I'd forgotten about those uses to be honest). The only drawback is that it would still take at least 3 feats to get 1 DMM ability (to be fair, I have trouble picking feats anyway, so that wouldn't be a bad choice if Glowsticks were availabe). Do Magic Weapon spells stack with Weapon enhancements?

They stack with enchantments like fiery, and overwrite enhancement bonuses. Entirely possible to get an effective +14 weapon as a result.

Tempest Fennac
2008-10-08, 02:31 PM
That means GMW which grants a +3 bonus wouldn't turn a +1 weapon into a +4 weapon, right? (Sorry about needing to ask this, but stacked bonuses confuse me).

Talya
2008-10-08, 02:33 PM
That means GMW which grants a +3 bonus wouldn't turn a +1 weapon into a +4 weapon, right? (Sorry about needing to ask this, but stacked bonuses confuse me).

Right, they don't stack.

The point is you could have a +1 keen vorpal fiery burst weapon of ultimate kickassery with a total equivalent enhancement bonus of +10, and get a high level +5 GMW on it to make it a +5 weapon of keen vorpal fiery burst ultimate kickassery, boosting its effective enhancement up to +14.

Tempest Fennac
2008-10-08, 02:35 PM
Thanks. (I see how it works now.)

Starbuck_II
2008-10-08, 02:37 PM
That means GMW which grants a +3 bonus wouldn't turn a +1 weapon into a +4 weapon, right? (Sorry about needing to ask this, but stacked bonuses confuse me).

No, it won't stack. That would be too broken (give WotC some slack, they aren't that bad at balance).

But a +1 Weapon with +9 abilitys (flaming, etc) can be G. M. W. into a +5 Weapon with +9 abilities.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 02:40 PM
No, it won't stack. That would be too broken (give WotC some slack, they aren't that bad at balance).

But a +1 Weapon with +9 abilitys (flaming, etc) can be G. M. W. into a +5 Weapon with +9 abilities.

...Would a +10 weapon pre-epic really actually be dangerously more useful than a +1 splatenchanted tricked out weapon?

JaxGaret
2008-10-08, 02:41 PM
Easy Smiting Paladin fix: play a Paladin/Cleric/Fist of Raziel.

Have your Paladin goodness and eat your Cleric cake too.

LibraryOgre
2008-10-08, 02:42 PM
I want to be a hero.

In ways other classes simply cannot match, a Paladin is a hero. He's the Captain America. He's the Superman. He's the person who holds to his ideals no matter what.

Fighters CAN do that. Wizards MIGHT do that. Rogues will POSSIBLY do that. But when you want to play a character who does not waver, that's a paladin.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 02:45 PM
I want to be a hero.

In ways other classes simply cannot match, a Paladin is a hero. He's the Captain America. He's the Superman. He's the person who holds to his ideals no matter what.

Fighters CAN do that. Wizards MIGHT do that. Rogues will POSSIBLY do that. But when you want to play a character who does not waver, that's a paladin.

I just wish they'd come standard with more angelically-flaming sword theatrics and some of the turning tricks ahem divine power feats, is all. My image of the holy powered warrior is basically a sword-and-board gish with lots of golden fire instead of white fire. Firefirefire, I am such a pyro.

BobVosh
2008-10-08, 02:52 PM
...Would a +10 weapon pre-epic really actually be dangerously more useful than a +1 splatenchanted tricked out weapon?

Can't have more than +5 enhancement pre-epic.

So it is the same bonus you can get. With more.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 02:53 PM
Can't have more than +5 enhancement pre-epic.

I know. Hence, my question.

Erk
2008-10-08, 02:54 PM
I just wish they'd come standard with more angelically-flaming sword theatrics and some of the turning tricks ahem divine power feats, is all. My image of the holy powered warrior is basically a sword-and-board gish with lots of golden fire instead of white fire. Firefirefire, I am such a pyro.

You ought to like the 4e paladin then. Odd, because that is exactly the opposite of how I view a paladin. I think a Pally should seem at first no different from a normal fighter: cleaner, perhaps, and with an air of unshakable, unflappable confidence and conviction. The powers s/he wields then should be subtle but potent, the sort that might not even be noticed outside of mechanics except for the odd non-flashy miracle.

Deed of Paksenarrion FTW.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 02:55 PM
You ought to like the 4e paladin then. Odd, because that is exactly the opposite of how I view a paladin. I think a Pally should seem at first no different from a normal fighter: cleaner, perhaps, and with an air of unshakable, unflappable confidence and conviction. The powers s/he wields then should be subtle but potent, the sort that might not even be noticed outside of mechanics except for the odd non-flashy miracle.

Deed of Paksenarrion FTW.

I do, as far as I haven't gotten to play anything in 4E.

Subtle magic is something I prefer to use with Bards.

Person_Man
2008-10-08, 02:58 PM
Paladin Mount + Leadership
Let's you to do some crazy awesome things, like riding a dragon more powerful then the rest of your party put together. And there are a number of very strong mounted combat related PrC out there, such as the Cavalier, Halfling Outrider, and Ashworm Dragoon.

Paladins generally have the best Saves in the game.
A 1st level Paladin with 16 Cha and 10 in every other stat has Saves of 5/3/3. A Rogue with 16 Dex and 10 in every other stat will have Saves of 0/5/0. A Monk with 16 Wis and 10 in every other stat has Saves of 2/2/5, still worse the the Paladin even though the Monk has 3 strong Saves and the Paladin only has 1. As you gain levels, the Paladin's Save advantage tends to grow, because Paladins generally make Cha one of their best stats, and because of MAD, he invests in improving Dex and Con. So it's not unreasonable for a Paladin 20 to have Saves in the 20/15/12 range or higher. Put this together with their various immunities, and Paladins can be ridiculously hard to take down.

Paladins have Turn Undead, which fuel a wide variety of divine and domain feats, which rock.

Paladin spells have been greatly expanded in the splat books.
Put this together with Battle Blessing, and you can cast Paladin spells as a Swift Action. Put it together with Sword of the Arcane Order, and you can cast Wizard spells. Paladin 20 can easily be a dependable full BAB Gish, with none of the contorted fluff of Wizard X/Abjurant Champion Y/Whatever Z/Something Else #!?.

Smite can be optimized (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91310).

Paladins have a lot of variants (forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-906113).
You can mine these for a lot of interesting effects. For example, you can give up Remove Disease for Dispel Magic. You can give up immunity to Fear for immunity to Compulsion. The Gnome Paladin Shadow Cloak Knight gets Hide and Move Silently as Skills, and Hide in Plain Site at level 6!

High Cha makes Paladins an excellent choice for Fear builds. For 2ish feats and a few magic items, you gain excellent crowd control against most mooks.

High Cha makes Paladins excellent party faces.
And unlike most other classes, Paladins are generally known as Paladins in the game world. (As opposed to Rogues, who might be known as a thief or a highwayman or a thug, or a Fighter, who might be known as a samurai or a guard or a soldier). This carries a level of trust and responsibility which ranks in Diplomacy by themselves can't buy.

Some people like having a Paladin Code that's linked to the mechanics. If used reasonably by an intelligent group, it can greatly enhance the roleplaying experience. (Of course, you could just make up a code on your own to follow. But some people like the direct link between fluff and crunch).

LibraryOgre
2008-10-08, 03:09 PM
You ought to like the 4e paladin then. Odd, because that is exactly the opposite of how I view a paladin. I think a Pally should seem at first no different from a normal fighter: cleaner, perhaps, and with an air of unshakable, unflappable confidence and conviction. The powers s/he wields then should be subtle but potent, the sort that might not even be noticed outside of mechanics except for the odd non-flashy miracle.

Deed of Paksenarrion FTW.

Holger Carlsen FTW, you mean.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-08, 03:18 PM
Deed of Paksenarrion FTW.

Slight derailing: is there a single book written by Elizabeth Moon in which the main protagonist is not a female solider who ends up liking horses?

Erk
2008-10-08, 03:33 PM
Slight derailing: is there a single book written by Elizabeth Moon in which the main protagonist is not a female solider who ends up liking horses?

The prequels to Deed of Paks would count, as both have male protagonists and neither protagonist is particularly enthusiastic for horses. I haven't read any of her other books beyond the first few pages as I don't care for the flavour of her sci fi.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-08, 03:33 PM
...Would a +10 weapon pre-epic really actually be dangerously more useful than a +1 splatenchanted tricked out weapon?

+10 hit/dam? Well, you'd bypass Epic DR without Bane (Bane +4 Weapon are +6 vs that creature).

Hard to say...there are alot of nice abilities...

You raise a good point.

Greg
2008-10-08, 04:31 PM
Paladins generally have the best Saves in the game.
A 1st level Paladin with 16 Cha and 10 in every other stat has Saves of 5/3/3. A Rogue with 16 Dex and 10 in every other stat will have Saves of 0/5/0. A Monk with 16 Wis and 10 in every other stat has Saves of 2/2/5, still worse the the Paladin even though the Monk has 3 strong Saves and the Paladin only has 1. <snip>
You make some strong points but a 1st level paladin with 16 CHA and 10 in every other stat has saves of 2/0/0. Paladins get divine grace at level 2.

toddex
2008-10-08, 04:52 PM
The paladin prestige class from unearthed arcana is pretty fun.

Bob the Urgh
2008-10-08, 05:07 PM
I just have to. It's because they're shiny.

LibraryOgre
2008-10-08, 05:25 PM
A Paladin's Song

Where have all the good men gone
And where are all the gods?
Where's the street-wise Hercules
To fight the rising odds?
Isn't there a white knight upon a fiery steed?
Late at night I toss and turn and dream
of what I need

[Chorus]

I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero 'til the end of the night
He's gotta be strong
And he's gotta be fast
And he's gotta be fresh from the fight
I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero 'til the morning light
He's gotta be sure
And it's gotta be soon
And he's gotta be larger than life

Somewhere after midnight
In my wildest fantasy
Somewhere just beyond my reach
There's someone reaching back for me
Racing on the thunder end rising with the heat
It's gonna take a superman to sweep me off my feet

[Chorus]

Up where the mountains meet the heavens above
Out where the lightning splits the sea
I would swear that there's someone somewhere
Watching me

Through the wind end the chill and the rain
And the storm and the flood
I can feel his approach
Like the fire in my blood

I'm probably going to wind up rewriting this to be specifically about Paladins, you know...

monty
2008-10-08, 05:31 PM
You play a paladin
http://www.splitreason.com/Product_Images/28140643a06a-xl.jpg
so others don't have to.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 05:31 PM
Paladin's are basically warriors with the ability with a 1-4 smites per day. They're MAD characters so they would have less str then barbarians and fight which means are less likely to hit opponents even evil opponents. Since smites are so few paladins are forced to save up their smites for the bigger evil or waste them on lesser evil and be a warrior with better saves vs BBEG.

You can say you should pick paladin to roleplay a holy warrior. This would true but Cleric can play like holy warrior and be far more effective with self buffs and be generally more useful.

BTW this thread is about 3.5e

fluff or mechanics?

Also paladins aren't the champions of gods in 3E
from
EE

Starbuck_II
2008-10-08, 05:35 PM
A Paladin's Song

I'm probably going to wind up rewriting this to be specifically about Paladins, you know...

Isn't that more a John Candy? (that old fat guy who played Uncle Chuck in a movie).

He always had that song in those action scenes.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 05:39 PM
i wish the paladin mechanics were more diverse and unique i will admit
from
EE

LibraryOgre
2008-10-08, 05:40 PM
Isn't that more a John Candy? (that old fat guy who played Uncle Chuck in a movie).

He always had that song in those action scenes.

Uncle Buck, actually.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-08, 05:41 PM
fluff or mechanics?


Good question.

There's a lot of reasons to play a paladin, fluff-wise - being a beacon of hope for the people, a paragon of virtues, an unfaltering embodiment of both valor and kindness... it has a lot of appeal for people who, like me, are tired with all the "hip" anti-heroes running around these days.

Mechanics-wise, you're better off playing a crusader or a cleric - you don't need to modify your concept at all. Well, paladins are a good class in 4e.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 05:42 PM
There's a lot of reasons to play a paladin, fluff-wise - being a beacon of hope for the people, a paragon of virtues, an unfaltering embodiment of both valor and kindness... it has a lot of appeal for people who, like me, are tired with all the "hip" anti-heroes running around these days.

Death to antiheroes.

Temp.
2008-10-08, 05:44 PM
Isn't that more a John Candy? You wouldn't deny that John Candy has levels in Paladin?

I'm not much of a fan of Paladins being a base class. As far as I see, they're just specialized Fighter/Cleric mutts. They lack anything to distinguish them from something like a Fighter 1/Cleric X. I would much rather retitle the Fist of Raziel "Paladin," drop the Good alignment requirement, replace it with something like the Crusader's and have it be a powerful class players aspire to enter rather than the 2-4 level dip it is.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 05:45 PM
Good question.

There's a lot of reasons to play a paladin, fluff-wise - being a beacon of hope for the people, a paragon of virtues, an unfaltering embodiment of both valor and kindness... it has a lot of appeal for people who, like me, are tired with all the "hip" anti-heroes running around these days.

Mechanics-wise, you're better off playing a crusader or a cleric - you don't need to modify your concept at all. Well, paladins are a good class in 4e.

exactly, paladins are my favorite class, but in groups i tend to be a fifth wheel because i can't offer very much without homebrew
from
EE

Hal
2008-10-08, 05:46 PM
There are reasons for playing characters besides "I want to be the most powerful dude the game has to offer." It's why people still want to play monks and fighters, despite the awful reception they get on these forums. It's why people play in games where the adventuring parties aren't entirely wizards, clerics, and druids.

And you know what? A good GM isn't going to punish you for playing a class lower down the totem pole of power.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-08, 05:47 PM
exactly, paladins are my favorite class, but in groups i tend to be a fifth wheel because i can't offer very much without homebrew
from
EE

Aren't you supposed to be, y'know, evil?

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 05:50 PM
There are reasons for playing characters besides "I want to be the most powerful dude the game has to offer." It's why people still want to play monks and fighters, despite the awful reception they get on these forums. It's why people play in games where the adventuring parties aren't entirely wizards, clerics, and druids.

And you know what? A good GM isn't going to punish you for playing a class lower down the totem pole of power.

The PHB Pally still has boring mechanics.

I'll play Monks even though I know they suck - they may not be that good at anything but staying alive, but I have a wide variety of options which are fun to use. Not ToB wide, but fairly so - lots of skills, I can talk to anyone, I can hurt myself and go "hey ma, no bleeding!", I can handle infected people without fear, be rapidly aged and laugh, and then there's the combat options! Tripping, stunning, flurrying, disarming, deflecting arrows! Holy **** it's all so worthless, but DAMN you look cool doing it.

(Same reason I've also been a Balance Druid in WoW since patch 1.8!) Pallies, though, they look so boring until you're high level with a lot of Divine Feats.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-08, 06:01 PM
You wouldn't deny that John Candy has levels in Paladin?

I'm not much of a fan of Paladins being a base class. As far as I see, they're just specialized Fighter/Cleric mutts. They lack anything to distinguish them from something like a Fighter 1/Cleric X. I would much rather retitle the Fist of Raziel "Paladin," drop the Good alignment requirement, replace it with something like the Crusader's and have it be a powerful class players aspire to enter rather than the 2-4 level dip it is.

He is honest in most of his movies...
Protects the innocent...harms who do evil...

Yeah, you might be right. He might.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 06:07 PM
Aren't you supposed to be, y'know, evil?

yeah, which is why role play good. Playing evil would get boring :smallbiggrin:
from
EE

Tengu_temp
2008-10-08, 06:10 PM
Offtopic time!



(Same reason I've also been a Balance Druid in WoW since patch 1.8!)

Balance since the release (yes, even pre-1.8, when there was no Moonkin Form and Balance's highest talent was Hurricane). Beat that.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 06:16 PM
Offtopic time!



Balance since the release (yes, even pre-1.8, when there was no Moonkin Form and Balance's highest talent was Hurricane). Beat that.

I can't. I didn't even play the freaking game before then. Good god I thought I was a masochist. You're not human.

monty
2008-10-08, 06:23 PM
There are reasons for playing characters besides "I want to be the most powerful dude the game has to offer." It's why people still want to play monks and fighters, despite the awful reception they get on these forums. It's why people play in games where the adventuring parties aren't entirely wizards, clerics, and druids.

Hey, fighter is a decent 2-level dip class.

DM Raven
2008-10-08, 07:21 PM
In 3.x I there isn't much going for a paladin unless you are using prestige classes paired with some of the uber feats provided from Dragon Magazine or the Book of Broken Deeds.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 08:03 PM
Offtopic time!



Balance since the release (yes, even pre-1.8, when there was no Moonkin Form and Balance's highest talent was Hurricane). Beat that.

Its offtopic time, its offtopic time, its hamtarue, i mean off topic time today
from
EE

LibraryOgre
2008-10-08, 08:19 PM
Really, I think the more appropriate question "What's the point of NOT playing a Paladin?"

Temp.
2008-10-08, 10:26 PM
Really, I think the more appropriate question "What's the point of NOT playing a Paladin?" I find the Cleric and Crusader are answer enough for that question in most cases.

If a player has limited sources available, wants the Special Mount or wants a specialized Complete Champion-type build, Paladin makes some sense, but in my experience those are not often the case.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:27 PM
The mechanical problems of the class pale compared to its sheer awesome. What, i'm not evading the point i'm just................dancing around it
from
EE

Akisa
2008-10-08, 10:32 PM
Well a Cleric of the game god doesn't really stop them from having same ideas of Paladin. Heck some gods even have similar dogma for their cleric to act compare to Paladins.

WitchSlayer
2008-10-08, 10:52 PM
Paladins make dang good mounted combatants.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:56 PM
Well a Cleric of the game god doesn't really stop them from having same ideas of Paladin. Heck some gods even have similar dogma for their cleric to act compare to Paladins.

but gods don't have to be absolute
from
EE

streakster
2008-10-08, 11:00 PM
What's the point of a Paladin? None. He's been replaced.

Crusader ftw!

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 11:02 PM
What's the point of a Paladin? None. He's been replaced.

Crusader ftw!

that jokes is getting stale
from
EE

Leon
2008-10-09, 12:17 AM
Do you count Cleric as a melee class? :smalltongue:
I count a Cleric as a Support Class

streakster
2008-10-09, 12:38 AM
that jokes is getting stale
from
EE

Ah, but the truth is ever fresh.

JaxGaret
2008-10-09, 12:49 AM
Slight derailing: is there a single book written by Elizabeth Moon in which the main protagonist is not a female solider who ends up liking horses?

Why wouldn't a female protagonist like riding horses?

Riding a horse in a certain way can be like having sex without the necessity of having a man be present. That seems pretty darned useful to me.

Plus it's just hot.

Crow
2008-10-09, 01:16 AM
What's the point of a Paladin? None. He's been replaced.

Crusader ftw!

Yes but can a Crusader create intra-party conflict like the Paladin???

I think not.

Raz_Fox
2008-10-09, 07:23 AM
WARNING: I haven't read through the entire thread. Oh, and I play 4th Edition. That being said, here goes:

A paladin is worth playing because sometimes you need a hero. Sometimes you need someone who'll slay the cruel dragon not because it's got a gleaming hoard or because it's cool, but because it must be done. Sometimes you need someone who listens to God before Man. Sometimes you need the hand of God gripping a sword, and that sword must have faith and courage behind it. Sometimes you need someone who is like a Boy Scout - Trustworthy, Loyal, Kind, Obedient, Brave and Reverant. Sometimes when you beg God to bless your sword, to keep you alive a little longer so that you can help the innocent, he'll answer. Sometimes they need a hero to save them, and you're not going to stand there and wait.


Crunch-wise? Tougher than Fighter, plus some nifty healing. But who cares about the crunch?

Squeeck
2008-10-09, 08:46 AM
Here's my take on the quintessential Paladin Song:

Velcra: Our Will Against Their Will


We are
Not as small as they think
No one's property
We're not here to please
We don't owe them anything
Noble is our cause
Justice our reward
I say upon my honor
The battle cannot be lost

Misleadingly it may seem
That their opponent is weak and feeble
but underneath
We have the willpower of steel
The insight, the heart and
the stomach of a king

It's our will against their will
It's our steel against their steel
And shortly
You will see how we separate
the men from the vermins
With your valor on the field
With your concord amongst your peers
We will claim a famous victory
Over the enemies of our righteous people

We are the righteous people

We are not here for disport
Defend our realm our home
And I think foul scorn
Of the invadors of our borders
Fear no sacrifice
Protect our kingdom's life
I lay down for my God
Live and die amongst you all

We're a diamond perfected under pressure
I assure you, we'll make our tyrants fearful
Even with our blood and guts in the dust
We'll continue to pursue what we feel that we must

It's our will against their will
It's our steel against their steel
And shortly
You will see how we separate the men from the vermin
With your valor on the field
With your concord amongst your peers
We will claim a famous victory
Over the enemies of our righteous people

We are the righteous people

Noble is our cause
Justice our reward
The battle cannot be lost

streakster
2008-10-09, 09:22 AM
Yes but can a Crusader create intra-party conflict like the Paladin???

I think not.

And that advantage shall be added to the Crusader's growing list.

allonym
2008-10-09, 09:43 AM
Because "I take a 5' step and Full Attack", "I cast (any spell no matter what)" or even all the awesomely named cleric buffs in the world somehow do not match up to yelling "SMITE EVIL!"

Duke of URL
2008-10-09, 09:46 AM
Paladin's are basically warriors with the ability with a 1-4 smites per day. They're MAD characters so they would have less str then barbarians and fight which means are less likely to hit opponents even evil opponents. Since smites are so few paladins are forced to save up their smites for the bigger evil or waste them on lesser evil and be a warrior with better saves vs BBEG.

You can say you should pick paladin to roleplay a holy warrior. This would true but Cleric can play like holy warrior and be far more effective with self buffs and be generally more useful.

BTW this thread is about 3.5e

Some people like going around with a stick up their backside and bossing other party members around?

More seriously, Paladin is an awful base class in D&D (edit: that is, D&D 3.5). Back in 1st edition, it was different -- with very high pre-reqs and RP restrictions, you got some cool features no mere fighter or ranger would ever get, but with a little less melee power. It was the prototypical "knight in shining armor" archetype that fit in perfectly with "the players are supposed to be the 'good guys'" mentality.

I never played 2ed, so I can't speak to Paladins there.

By 3.x, however, things had changed. Multiclassing was simpler. Feats made characters much more customizable. A Paladin as a base class really makes little sense anymore -- it's class features work better as a PrC (such as my attempt (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35479) or Unearthed Arcana's Prestige Paladin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigePaladin)).

In 4e, a Paladin has a distinct role, and so may be more reasonable as a base class once again.

Krrth
2008-10-09, 09:51 AM
Because the *Idea* of the Paladin reaches down into the core of some of us and touches a sense of wonder.

Because it remindes us that there *are* Heroes in this world.

Because it remindes us of the stories of youth, of King Arthur and Camelot.

Because ot holds up a mirror, and shows many of us what we would like to be-if only we were stronger.

Roderick_BR
2008-10-09, 09:51 AM
To play a divine warrior.
If you can play a cleric in a more effective warrior role than paladins and fighters, well, that's a game design flaw.

JaxGaret
2008-10-09, 10:12 AM
Because it remindes us that there *are* Heroes in this world.

You can be a Hero without following the Paladin CoC.

Krrth
2008-10-09, 10:16 AM
You can be a Hero without following the Paladin CoC.

Yes, you can. However, as other posters have pointed out, the paladin as envisionedis the Knight in Shining Armor, the Light in the Darkness. That is, what the little child inside us would recognise as a Hero.

As an aside, that was part of the reason previous versions had to have at least a 17 charisma. Being instantly likeable and trustworthy was part of the ideal.

monty
2008-10-09, 10:22 AM
Because "I take a 5' step and Full Attack", "I cast (any spell no matter what)" or even all the awesomely named cleric buffs in the world somehow do not match up to yelling "SMITE EVIL!"

But not as awesome as a Crusader shouting, say, "Overwhelming Mountain Strike!" "Order Forged from Chaos!" "Repulse the Monkey!" Sorry, that'd be a monk.

Reinforcements
2008-10-09, 10:56 AM
What's the point of a Paladin? None. He's been replaced.

Crusader ftw!
Damn! Beat me to it. Well, I was going to say, "None, if the question is 'What's the point of playing a paladin when you can play a crusader?'" but you know.

Hal
2008-10-09, 10:58 AM
What's the point of a Paladin? None. He's been replaced.

Crusader ftw!

Pfft. Crusader's never going to get the most out of that Holy Avenger.

Of course, if you find a DM who will let your paladin have one, then why not play a paladin?

Kioran
2008-10-09, 02:27 PM
Paladins are the only kind of class that is, more or less, set on track. That might limit options, but it's the kind of class to play for a character of utter determination and integrity, even if that proves to be brittle or the character's unmaking.
This is, more or less, a Paladin exclusive:

"No compromise, even in the face of apocalypse"

And that is all kinds of awesome, especially in a medium-powered campaign where a Paladin can actually do something.

JaxGaret
2008-10-09, 06:14 PM
Paladins are the only kind of class that is, more or less, set on track. That might limit options, but it's the kind of class to play for a character of utter determination and integrity, even if that proves to be brittle or the character's unmaking.
This is, more or less, a Paladin exclusive:

"No compromise, even in the face of apocalypse"

And that is all kinds of awesome, especially in a medium-powered campaign where a Paladin can actually do something.

Anyone can have the same personal CoC that the Paladin has. It's not exclusive to Paladins. The only thing exclusive to Paladins is the falling mechanic.

IMO a character who adheres to the Paladin's CoC without any Damocles' sword hanging over their head if they fail is at least as impressive as a Paladin doing it, knowing full well that if they ever screw up, they're going to lose their powers.

Eldariel
2008-10-09, 07:02 PM
A Lawful Good Cleric and a Paladin should be played similarly anyways. Whenever I want to be a holy warrior, I'll play the standard Cleric. Whenever I want to be a priest, I'll play Cloistered Cleric (and ban stuff like Divine Favor, Divine Power and Righteous Might from my list). So I don't really find the need for the core Paladin - the "Mount"-ability makes me think it wants to be a Knight, but then there's all the religious mumbo-jumbo added that has nothing to do with knighthood.

Sure, you can be a religious knight or a divine champion, but then I'd play a different class or, y'know, multiclass (as I understand, that's what the option is meant to do in the first place - to properly present concepts that are between the core classes). So I think Paladin is a failed attempt to capture the idea of a divine knight (which shouldn't be its own class in the first place!). Just divine warrior = Cleric (which they built really well for that role, except with an excess dose of power), just Knight = the class. Paladin should be a PrC (like the Prestige Paladin) or a dualclassed Cleric/Knight. And Knight should be a core class (you could argue it already is in Fighter, but since they failed to make Fighter versatile enough to be a Knight, either Fighter needs to be fixed or Knight needs to be a separate class; and yes, I'm aware of PHBII Knight, talking about Core here).

Vazzaroth
2008-10-09, 07:08 PM
I've always hated 3.5 Paladin. Both Mechanically (ESPECIALLY the horse! That does NOT work unless the whole party is mounted! Not to mention in very situational terrain. :smallmad:) and ideologically. I've liked the Paladin of Freedom CG Variant from Unearthed Arcana, but never enough to play one.

Anyway, yes, 3.5 is not balanced in combat, Wizards acknowledges this with 4th edition, and if combat balance is important play that. Not that the OP necessarily did it, but I hate it when people critique 3.5 for concerns about "Why do X when Y is so good!?" then refuse to play 4th for w/e reason. Congratulations, you've found support for a new edition. Sure the new one isn't perfect, but nothing is.

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 07:12 PM
I hate tomatos - their texture grosses me out too. But I do like the texture of mangos!

Wait, I hate those because of the taste.
Yes, this post WAS relevant.

SoD
2008-10-09, 07:21 PM
Roleplay purposes. DnD being a roleplaying game. Maybe you do it because you want to play a fallen Paladin by talking it out with the DM, allowing something to happen, and taking levels in Blackguard. Or maybe you want to play a Greyguard. Maybe you like the idea of something designed to take on evil no matter what.

Neon Knight
2008-10-09, 07:25 PM
Paladins are the only kind of class that is, more or less, set on track. That might limit options, but it's the kind of class to play for a character of utter determination and integrity, even if that proves to be brittle or the character's unmaking.
This is, more or less, a Paladin exclusive:

"No compromise, even in the face of apocalypse"

And that is all kinds of awesome, especially in a medium-powered campaign where a Paladin can actually do something.

A paladin gets something from his code. An honorable LG fighter gets diddly-squat. The gods give him no favor; and yet he is faithful. That, my friend, is all kinds of awesome, nay, badass. A paladin who follows his code? Par for course. For a Fighter to overcome evil, it is a much greater task, and a much nobler one.

And humanism is always more interesting, IMHO, then blindly following an ideal of "good" set down by gods who are either a) too perfect to be human, and thus cannot understand the human condition or b) basically super powerful humans, and thus no more morally correct than the rest of us. Self-determination ftw!

In addition, the mechanics of the Crusader make for a better "diehard" class than the Paladin by far.

You'll take my life but I'll take yours too!
You'll fire your musket but I'll run you through!
So when you're waiting for the next attack!
You better stand cause theres no turning back!

In conclusion, I reject your argument in its entirety.

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 07:28 PM
To go flip side - while the Paladin gets something from following the code, he is essentially putting himself at the mercy of his past self. He has chosen to pursue the path of getting power only from the righteous, and if he sways, he is pretty much worthless. The LG Fighter, then, has some insurance. It's not as though Paladins are superpowerful, after all.

Personally, I see much to admire in both types, even if I do find the 3.x Paladin uninteresting to play mechanically.

chiasaur11
2008-10-09, 07:39 PM
I hate tomatos - their texture grosses me out too. But I do like the texture of mangos!

Wait, I hate those because of the taste.
Yes, this post WAS relevant.

So, I hear you're looking to hire a mad genetic engineer.

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 07:42 PM
So, I hear you're looking to hire a mad genetic engineer.

I'm looking to hire a lot of mad things.

Can you top a cow Paladin?

(...Such a bad pun. I'm worse than Fax.)

Roderick_BR
2008-10-09, 07:42 PM
To go flip side - while the Paladin gets something from following the code, he is essentially putting himself at the mercy of his past self. He has chosen to pursue the path of getting power only from the righteous, and if he sways, he is pretty much worthless. The LG Fighter, then, has some insurance. It's not as though Paladins are superpowerful, after all.

Personally, I see much to admire in both types, even if I do find the 3.x Paladin uninteresting to play mechanically.
True, the paladin in previous editions gained a lot of power because of his restrictive code. In 3.0, they "balanced" the meelers, and forgot to give the paladin that little needed boost. He did get something in 3.5, but he still lacks.

To tell the truth, I wouldn't mind replacing paladins with crusaders. Just call them paladin, and give him access to all the paladin-only stuff, like holy avengers. It also allows the use of the variant paladins (Freedom, Slaughter, And Tyranny), since it's already built-in the crusader. For balance reasons, you could actually say that his powers are divine magic in nature, instead of supernatural.

(On a side note, I'm re-fluffying warlocks as sorcerers till the new books come out.)

Neon Knight
2008-10-09, 07:44 PM
To go flip side - while the Paladin gets something from following the code, he is essentially putting himself at the mercy of his past self. He has chosen to pursue the path of getting power only from the righteous, and if he sways, he is pretty much worthless. The LG Fighter, then, has some insurance. It's not as though Paladins are superpowerful, after all.



Touche. I still like secular humanism.

Eldariel
2008-10-09, 07:49 PM
Actually, I'll add a story to this - my first attempt to play a Paladin pretty much turned me off the whole class. Back then I didn't really realize how tough they're to build (I was only starting with 3.5 and I wasn't familiar with the mechanics), but when I rolled my stats and noticed that I'm not simply getting all the high stats I'd need for my class features, I started to think something smells funny.

Then I played the class. And my DM told me I wouldn't kill escaping raider Goblins who had been robbing the countryside because it's apparently "their way of life" and "I have no right to stop them from earning their living". I think he also forgot the "Law"-part of my alignment, in addition to misinterpretting the "Good"-part. That made me realize that it's literally the only class that needs a good DM to even be playable. And that's thanks to the CoC. And even with the good DM, they're still the most stat-hungry class in the PHB (well, right up there with Monks at any rate).


Basically, the class is pretty botched up and I encourage anyone who enjoys not being able to do fighting (due to stats and/or DM), not being allowed to talk with the evil guys ('cause diplomacy with evil dudes is bad according to CoC), not being able to properly cast spells (due to insanely slow progression), not having proper healing to be a healer and not having enough skills to do anything else well to play one.

So yea, the idea is only slightly botched up (why the f is a clear combination class a core class?), and the mechanics are heavily botched up.

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 07:56 PM
My only issue with the CoC is that it could have come with a disclaimer that says "DMs: This is not an excuse to **** with your player unnecessarily. Give them advance warning, or be lenient here."

But I think the general statement of "DMs: This is not an excuse to **** with your player unnecessarily (and the converse as well - Players, don't **** with your DM unnecessarily)" should be a basic one, and thus must be repeated often, even though I think it shouldn't ever have to be said in the first place.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-09, 08:06 PM
Then I played the class. And my DM told me I wouldn't kill escaping raider Goblins who had been robbing the countryside because it's apparently "their way of life" and "I have no right to stop them from earning their living". I think he also forgot the "Law"-part of my alignment, in addition to misinterpretting the "Good"-part. That made me realize that it's literally the only class that needs a good DM to even be playable. And that's thanks to the CoC. And even with the good DM, they're still the most stat-hungry class in the PHB (well, right up there with Monks at any rate)..

Whoa: did you just say that the DM prevented you from killing goblins because they did it before?
I don't understand...logic failiing...red bicycle radishes greenly...

Eldariel
2008-10-09, 08:13 PM
Whoa: did you just say that the DM prevented you from killing goblins because they did it before?
I don't understand...logic failiing...red bicycle radishes greenly...

The DM said since I didn't know if they had killed people during their robbing raids or if the farmers had fled (and thus avoided death), he told me my Paladin would never kill them ('cause he had no way of knowing they had murderous intent - trying to kill me and party members didn't count for some reason). At most knock them out (regretting it all the way) and bring them before a court of law. I'd also like to point out that the Paladin was level 1 at this point and he would've died if he tried to deal non-lethal damage. And definitely not ride down escaping Goblins - they totally can't keep raiding if they manage to escape since they've been beat once :smallconfused:

I'd like to point out that the was an awesome DM otherwise and I liked his DMing, but immediately when I said I wanted to play a Paladin (just because nobody in the party had), I had to start putting up with Exalted++++++++++ behaviour (and I was LAWFUL Good, not Neutral Good, where such might in a distant sense make some small amount of sense... Not that I'd like it that way either). This particular incident (along with few other alignment disagreements) has also caused me to axe alignment entirely for humanoids (and most creatures that aren't literally embodiments of any given alignment) and just make alignment-based stuff work equally on everyone (other than the Blasphemy-line, which now works against only - I found it too powerful to allow against all creature types, especially without CL cap, which in turn would make it useless against more powerful outsiders).

Hal
2008-10-09, 08:56 PM
The DM said since I didn't know if they had killed people during their robbing raids or if the farmers had fled (and thus avoided death), he told me my Paladin would never kill them ('cause he had no way of knowing they had murderous intent - trying to kill me and party members didn't count for some reason). At most knock them out (regretting it all the way) and bring them before a court of law. I'd also like to point out that the Paladin was level 1 at this point and he would've died if he tried to deal non-lethal damage. And definitely not ride down escaping Goblins - they totally can't keep raiding if they manage to escape since they've been beat once :smallconfused:

This is, unfortunately, why low-level paladins are incredibly hard to play if your DM is building a "realistic" world. You have all this stuff that your DM says you would be "obligated" to take on as part of your moral code, but heaven help you because the moment you stick your neck out you'll be squashed like a bug by some NPC 4 levels higher than you.

I might be a bit bitter on this regard. I played a low-level game as a paladin where our DM starved us of resources and XP and constantly surrounded us with hostile NPCs who either outnumbered us or were higher in level than us. That my paladin made it to level 4 was a miracle in and of itself.

hamishspence
2008-10-10, 11:01 AM
Hey, even in Exalted Deeds there was the line- Good is not necessarily stupid: taking on the forces of evil does not mean walking straight up to the Great Red Wyrm at 1st level and challenging it to a duel.

Roderick_BR
2008-10-10, 09:11 PM
Hey, even in Exalted Deeds there was the line- Good is not necessarily stupid: taking on the forces of evil does not mean walking straight up to the Great Red Wyrm at 1st level and challenging it to a duel.
Yeah. Most people seem to forget it, though. Usually, it's DM's that doesn't like it, and decide to punish the player for picking a class to have fun. In my games, I never had problems playing a paladin, specially because I was usually the only one playing one, and my friends trusted me to play it "correctly" (don't attack people blindly, DO attack monsters that seems to be attacking innocent/us, asking questions before lying down the hurt when we have time, etc), so the DM never felt the necessity to enforce anything on me. In fact, when we are joking on whose class each of us would be, I'm usually pointed out as cleric or paladin (one of my friends is always the thief. Not rogue, thief! another one is always the warrior/barbarian, and the other is always the druid. only our 4th member varies too much, but he's usually a fighter/ranger)

Akisa
2008-10-10, 10:56 PM
Yeah. In fact, when we are joking on whose class each of us would be, I'm usually pointed out as cleric or paladin (one of my friends is always the thief. Not rogue, thief! another one is always the warrior/barbarian, and the other is always the druid. only our 4th member varies too much, but he's usually a fighter/ranger)

Don't let him see Paizo Pathfinder beta for druid then...

Kioran
2008-10-11, 05:17 AM
A paladin gets something from his code. An honorable LG fighter gets diddly-squat. The gods give him no favor; and yet he is faithful. That, my friend, is all kinds of awesome, nay, badass. A paladin who follows his code? Par for course. For a Fighter to overcome evil, it is a much greater task, and a much nobler one.

And humanism is always more interesting, IMHO, then blindly following an ideal of "good" set down by gods who are either a) too perfect to be human, and thus cannot understand the human condition or b) basically super powerful humans, and thus no more morally correct than the rest of us. Self-determination ftw!

In addition, the mechanics of the Crusader make for a better "diehard" class than the Paladin by far.

You'll take my life but I'll take yours too!
You'll fire your musket but I'll run you through!
So when you're waiting for the next attack!
You better stand cause theres no turning back!

In conclusion, I reject your argument in its entirety.

A Paladin gets something for it, yes - but seeing as only his skill list and his HD size put him apart from the Warrior, while the rest is all granted power, I'd venture to say that the Paladin somehow spends some of his learning and ressources on learning how to use that granted power, in a sense investing part of his own power into his covenant with his divine force.
That forces the Paladin to walk the straight and narrow. The Fighter can cut corners, or be like Roy: Decidedly good, but LG only on a technicality. No Paladin material. For while the Paladin is certainly limiting, that limit also brings certain types of play and awesomeness into brilliant focus, because there is literally no alternative to trying to be the best holy warrior one can be.
This is also aided, for example, by abilities such as Divine Grace or the fearlessness. It is, mechanically, harder to make a Paladin give in or cut corners.
Thses are the real roleplaying advantages of the Paladin that the 4th Ed Paladin and the Crusader can never copy or replace. Shame though that one has to multiclass out to remain viable.

Eldariel
2008-10-11, 05:23 AM
Don't let him see Paizo Pathfinder beta for druid then...

Hmm, why? Because it's even more broken than the PHB 3.5 Druid? Save for Wildshape, which seems actually fair now :o

Tengu_temp
2008-10-11, 06:03 AM
Then I played the class. And my DM told me I wouldn't kill escaping raider Goblins who had been robbing the countryside because it's apparently "their way of life" and "I have no right to stop them from earning their living". I think he also forgot the "Law"-part of my alignment, in addition to misinterpretting the "Good"-part. That made me realize that it's literally the only class that needs a good DM to even be playable. And that's thanks to the CoC. And even with the good DM, they're still the most stat-hungry class in the PHB (well, right up there with Monks at any rate).


Your DM is the sole reason why the Code of Conduct and paladins falling got scrapped in 4e.

Roderick_BR
2008-10-11, 11:09 AM
Don't let him see Paizo Pathfinder beta for druid then...
hehe, don't worry. He was never a optmiser. He was pretty much the group's band-aid, because he doesn't know how to do much with his spells and class features, because he tends to avoid combat at all.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-11, 11:17 AM
Your DM is the sole reason why the Code of Conduct and paladins falling got scrapped in 4e.

As I said, Some good DMs go crazy when they encounter a Paladin.

I don't know if this is a mental disorder many DMs all have but rarely show due to not many paladins *(some genetic disorders are nature and nurture) or is this some weird flu.

* You need the genes to be in the right sequence and then encounter the right environment. I'm learning about in my genetics class: those are the most interesting because you wouldn't know it till too late.

snoopy13a
2008-10-11, 11:23 AM
As I said, Some good DMs go crazy when they encounter a Paladin.

I don't know if this is a mental disorder many DMs all have but rarely show due to not many paladins *(some genetic disorders are nature and nurture) or is this some weird flu.

* You need the genes to be in the right sequence and then encounter the right environment. I'm learning about in my genetics class: those are the most interesting because you wouldn't know it till too late.

It seems to me that everyone else has to be on board for one person to play a Paladin. The DM should be running a campaign that isn't "gray" so that it is clear what is good and what isn't. Additionally, the other players should probably be playing characters whose alignments and personalities that do not conflict with the Paladin. For example, if everyone in the party is Lawful Good, no one should have any issues with the Paladin (unless the Paladin is Miko :smalltongue: ). However, trouble can erupt with a character such as a chaotic neutral rogue. If everyone is on the same page, then it should work out fine. It is when people are trying to mess with the person playing the Paladin that issues occur.

AstralFire
2008-10-11, 12:14 PM
I wouldn't say everyone has to be on the same page so much as everyone has to not be willing to derail their own character concepts or otherwise screw with the paladin more than once a session on average. Moral conflict is interesting in the proper doses.

Neon Knight
2008-10-11, 12:43 PM
That forces the Paladin to walk the straight and narrow. The Fighter can cut corners, or be like Roy: Decidedly good, but LG only on a technicality. No Paladin material. For while the Paladin is certainly limiting, that limit also brings certain types of play and awesomeness into brilliant focus, because there is literally no alternative to trying to be the best holy warrior one can be.


False. You can always sell your soul to the devil (blackguard,) take a PrC that lets you ignore alignment/get away with murder (there are a couple of these,) or just use retraining/reincarnation/that one Pun-Pun cheese to get out of it entirely.

There's also the fact that WotC supports behaviors that are very unholy (or at least rejected by the majority of posters here) as proper methods for Paladins. Allow me to cite a source. These three quotes come from the Scion of Tem-Et-Nu, a prestige class designed for paladins and supposedly 100% compatible with Paladin behavior. (It is not a Paladin exclusive prestige class, but most of the fluff indicates that paladins are the most likely candidates to become scions.)


A typical scion of Tem-Et-Nu is Karlott, who specializes in coming to the aid of other scions. Though she puts in a requisite amount of time helping farmers with irrigation issues and tracking down smugglers on the river, Karlott is far more interested in rumors of scions seeking additional comrades-in-arms. She drops everything to rush to the scene and pledge her blade to the cause. Other more experienced scions think of her as a loose cannon, but they cannot fault her performance in battle.

It's time for Mystery Paladin Theater 2008!

Typical Scion: What ails you?

Farmer: Help! My crops will be ruined and my family will starve unless I get some help.

Mysterious Stranger: Hey, I think a scion down the road needs some help cutting up dudes.

Typical Scion: K thanks. *leaves*

Farmer: Wait! He-*GURK*

Mysterious Stranger Robber: What a rube!

*later*

Experienced Scion: Well, this whole "loose cannon" thing seems out of line with the whole Paladin ideal, but you cut dudes up so wonderfully we'll let it pass.

Typical Scion: K thanks.

Jager monster: Now, dot iz my keend uf voman!

Strong Bad: Hey, shut up Jagy!

The above character, Karlott, is a paladin btw.


...A noble's refusal to provide such aid-even on perfectly legitimate grounds- almost always leads to an uncomfortable silence during which the noble suspects that the scion is using her powers to determine whether or not the noble is refusing out of evil intent (through the medium of detect evil.) Some nobles-perhaps those who have guilt consciences- have spoken out against this practice, and in response the scions generally deny subjecting nobles to divination spells without their permission;...

Paladins: the extortionists of DnD! Also, support for the detect then smite paladin. Indirect, but it puts enough grey around the issue to make it seem viable.

Did we mention they help with looting and property theft reacquisition? If it was already stolen from someone else, its okay for me to take it!


The only real clashing point is jurisdiction. The scions believe it is in their mandate to confiscate illegal goods found in or on the water, and then give them to the temples to sell (or in some cases destroy) to raise funds. Since most authorities earn their living by levying fines, they see the scions' policy of confiscation as taking food out of their families' mouths. The scions relent, giving up some of what they have confiscated, when there is too much for them to carry themselves, but otherwise they refer the authorities to the temples- at which point most law officers give up. The clerics are notoriously difficult to convince once the treasure is locked up in their vaults.

Paladins- grab everything that's not tied down and hoof it back to the temple, double time!



This is also aided, for example, by abilities such as Divine Grace or the fearlessness. It is, mechanically, harder to make a Paladin give in or cut corners.

Warforged. Dudes are the frikkin' terminators of DnD. A flesh and blood paladin would give out long before a Warforged Crusader.




Thses are the real roleplaying advantages of the Paladin that the 4th Ed Paladin and the Crusader can never copy or replace. Shame though that one has to multiclass out to remain viable.

Nah, bullhonkey. A character who would commit suicide if they strayed of the path of LGness could be of any class. And he'd have to stick to

Akisa
2008-10-11, 12:44 PM
Hmm, why? Because it's even more broken than the PHB 3.5 Druid? Save for Wildshape, which seems actually fair now :o

Nah they cast dominate class feature on wildshape and made it play patty cake with a wight. I was warning the person not to look at it or they might suffer from a crushing despair cast on her/him.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-11, 03:10 PM
There's also the fact that WotC supports behaviors that are very unholy (or at least rejected by the majority of posters here) as proper methods for Paladins. Allow me to cite a source. These three quotes come from the Scion of Tem-Et-Nu, a prestige class designed for paladins and supposedly 100% compatible with Paladin behavior. (It is not a Paladin exclusive prestige class, but most of the fluff indicates that paladins are the most likely candidates to become scions.)





I've never read that Prc before: that is awesome.

hamishspence
2008-10-11, 03:17 PM
it does say they aren't supposed to use detect evil on senior figures without permission (in 2nd ed Detect evil was considered very, very insulting), that they must hand over arrested figures to the authorities since they do not have prisoner facilities or the authority to deal with them, and that, for evil PCs who meet them, the evil PCs can be "asked to move on, or attacked, depending on how powerful they are"

Starbuck_II
2008-10-11, 03:25 PM
It also says "...Scions are a law unto themselves..."

Kioran
2008-10-12, 07:10 AM
False. You can always sell your soul to the devil (blackguard,) take a PrC that lets you ignore alignment/get away with murder (there are a couple of these,) or just use retraining/reincarnation/that one Pun-Pun cheese to get out of it entirely.

But then, a black/greyguard is not a Paladin any longer. These are specific PrCs with new codes of conduct which supercede the old one. The classical Paladin, even if multiclassed into pious templar, or Rangerdin/Mikodin still is very much bound to trying hard to find a better way™


There's also the fact that WotC supports behaviors that are very unholy (or at least rejected by the majority of posters here) as proper methods for Paladins. Allow me to cite a source. These three quotes come from the Scion of Tem-Et-Nu, a prestige class designed for paladins and supposedly 100% compatible with Paladin behavior. (It is not a Paladin exclusive prestige class, but most of the fluff indicates that paladins are the most likely candidates to become scions.)

It's time for Mystery Paladin Theater 2008!

Typical Scion: What ails you?

Farmer: Help! My crops will be ruined and my family will starve unless I get some help.

Mysterious Stranger: Hey, I think a scion down the road needs some help cutting up dudes.

Typical Scion: K thanks. *leaves*

Farmer: Wait! He-*GURK*

Mysterious Stranger Robber: What a rube!

*later*

Experienced Scion: Well, this whole "loose cannon" thing seems out of line with the whole Paladin ideal, but you cut dudes up so wonderfully we'll let it pass.

Typical Scion: K thanks.

Jager monster: Now, dot iz my keend uf voman!

Strong Bad: Hey, shut up Jagy!

The above character, Karlott, is a paladin btw.

Paladins: the extortionists of DnD! Also, support for the detect then smite paladin. Indirect, but it puts enough grey around the issue to make it seem viable.

Did we mention they help with looting and property theft reacquisition? If it was already stolen from someone else, its okay for me to take it!

Paladins- grab everything that's not tied down and hoof it back to the temple, double time!

Okay, you've found something really bad. I reject this interpretation of the Paladin code, unfortunately, it is canon, so to speak. But so is manipulate form or half the complete champion. All I know is that a Core Paladin is not supposed to act that way.
Hell, Miko shows a lot more decency, restraint and common sense than these guys. That, and that she(like most other Paladins) has good reasons for whatever she does prior to snapping. These guys look like moral relativism incarnate - when good/evil become factions instead of alignments.
Which is the main crux with the Paladins - especially if there is miscommunication between members of the party or the GM about how good/evil works in his world. A Paladin in a world where these are merely factions is like a crack-addled Jack Bauer clone on a leash, and nothing wrth playing. A Paladin in a world where good is indeed held to a higher standard/honor is stronger than steel is an awesome thing to behold.



Warforged. Dudes are the frikkin' terminators of DnD. A flesh and blood paladin would give out long before a Warforged Crusader.

They are also:
a) Eberron. Many people are not playing Eberron
b) not Fearless
c) Not inherently more principled
d) Boring through the elimination of most Human urges and needs.


Nah, bullhonkey. A character who would commit suicide if they strayed of the path of LGness could be of any class. And he'd have to stick to

True. But they can cut corners. And most of the time they will. Really, no one would lobby for looser terms if that person was not interested in them, if merely as a contigency.
Alone the option of stepping of the straight and narrow exists. A Paladin would have to commit to stepping of the straight and narrow at least, whereas a "Roy" can simply do it.

Starsinger
2008-10-12, 01:19 PM
This is also aided, for example, by abilities such as Divine Grace or the fearlessness. It is, mechanically, harder to make a Paladin give in or cut corners.
Thses are the real roleplaying advantages of the Paladin that the 4th Ed Paladin and the Crusader can never copy or replace.

Fearlessness is great. Unfortunately, that's not what courage is. Courage is not the absence of fear, courage is being afraid and doing what's right anyways. So having a creature without fear? That's not really the courageous knight, that's a moron.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-12, 01:21 PM
Fearlessness is great. Unfortunately, that's not what courage is. Courage is not the absence of fear, courage is being afraid and doing what's right anyways. So having a creature without fear? That's not really the courageous knight, that's a moron.

True, Paladins are fearless not couragous.

Hal
2008-10-12, 03:12 PM
True, Paladins are fearless not couragous.

Yes, but they are also called "fear" effects, not "discouraging" effects. Nobody would want to cast "Cause Self-Doubt" or find dragons all that amazing if their presence inspired low self-esteem.

Tar Palantir
2008-10-12, 03:21 PM
Half the characters I play are sorcerer/other class. In that case, Cha to all saves is great. I have a high level sorc/paly with 24/21/35 for saves. RP-wise, paladins are holy warriors with more emphasis on the warrior than on the holy.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-12, 07:35 PM
Yes, but they are also called "fear" effects, not "discouraging" effects. Nobody would want to cast "Cause Self-Doubt" or find dragons all that amazing if their presence inspired low self-esteem.

If I ever play a Wizard in 3.5 again: I'm researching Cause Self Doubt.

I have no idea what it will do, but I want it now.

Starsinger
2008-10-12, 07:50 PM
If I ever play a Wizard in 3.5 again: I'm researching Cause Self Doubt.

I have no idea what it will do, but I want it now.

Enchantment, target must succeed at a will save every turn or cancel their action.

Hal
2008-10-12, 07:59 PM
If I ever play a Wizard in 3.5 again: I'm researching Cause Self Doubt.

I have no idea what it will do, but I want it now.

Nah, you want Cause Low Self-Esteem.

"*Sigh*. I would attack you but it'll never get girls to like me. And it's not like I can hit you anyways. Man, why do I suck so much?"

monty
2008-10-12, 11:39 PM
Nah, you want Cause Low Self-Esteem.

"*Sigh*. I would attack you but it'll never get girls to like me. And it's not like I can hit you anyways. Man, why do I suck so much?"

Monks automatically fail their save.

chiasaur11
2008-10-12, 11:44 PM
Monks automatically fail their save.

No, Samurai automatically fail the save.

Monks get a "Overinflated sense of own capabilities" save, courtesy of Sir Giacomo.

averagejoe
2008-10-12, 11:48 PM
Am I the only one who finds Hal and Monty posting so close together a little weird? :smallconfused:

I always thought of the fearless ability of the paladin as lending them courage; they're immune to fear effects, but not because they don't feel fear, it's because they always overcome it.

monty
2008-10-12, 11:52 PM
I always thought of the fearless ability of the paladin as lending them courage; they're immune to fear effects, but not because they don't feel fear, it's because they always overcome it.

I put it as the same thing as their Cha to saves; when something hits them, they just flash a smile and shrug it off.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-13, 07:13 AM
I think they're fearless because they're couragous. Defining it as fearlessness is a mechanical hint due to the existance of spells and other effects which cause fear.

Dude, Courage requires you to act fearless nut be fearless.

A Fearless man cannot be couragous. That is a contradiction.

horseboy
2008-10-13, 11:37 AM
Some people like going around with a stick up their backside and bossing other party members around?

More seriously, Paladin is an awful base class in D&D (edit: that is, D&D 3.5). Back in 1st edition, it was different -- with very high pre-reqs and RP restrictions, you got some cool features no mere fighter or ranger would ever get, but with a little less melee power. It was the prototypical "knight in shining armor" archetype that fit in perfectly with "the players are supposed to be the 'good guys'" mentality.
Oh, rubbing your 18/00 Dex and Con in the fighter's face was always fun. :smallcool:
But yeah, their failings mechanically are just another shovel load on the crap heap of 3.x. :smallyuk:

hamishspence
2008-10-13, 11:40 AM
thing is, Pallys were at least partly stuck with same problems in 2nd ed. Worse, if anything, they fell for any Chaotic act (but could atone.)

So, what makes 3.5 paladins that much worse? the high stats made 2nd ed ones good, but, were they really that much better than fighters, rangers, barbarians?

Renegade Paladin
2008-10-13, 11:51 AM
I always like to play Paladin types, but I never have played a Paladin... or a cleric for that matter. I just don't like the feel of the Paladin mechanics. Its stunted spell-list always felt tacked on, I didn't want a mount, I wanted to shoot the holy wrath of god with fire from my sword. Smite didn't deal fire damage. I was very upset about that back when.
You were upset about the fact that smite wasn't something that everyone and his brother has resistance to? :smallamused:

averagejoe
2008-10-13, 11:58 AM
Dude, Courage requires you to act fearless nut be fearless.

A Fearless man cannot be couragous. That is a contradiction.

Yes, but there's nothing in the rules that actually says that a paladin doesn't become afraid, just that he's immune to the effects of fear. You say, "courage requires you to act fearless," but when you don't get any insight into what the character's thinking, acting fearless and being fearless pretty much look the same.

AstralFire
2008-10-13, 12:13 PM
You were upset about the fact that smite wasn't something that everyone and his brother has resistance to? :smallamused:

I wasn't citing my mechanical issues with the paladin.

Hal
2008-10-13, 04:37 PM
Am I the only one who finds Hal and Monty posting so close together a little weird? :smallconfused:



I am what every player dreams of being. Monty is probably closer to reality.

Vinshwitz
2008-10-13, 04:40 PM
i dont like paladins very much. they are fun suckers

horseboy
2008-10-13, 05:18 PM
thing is, Pallys were at least partly stuck with same problems in 2nd ed. Worse, if anything, they fell for any Chaotic act (but could atone.)

So, what makes 3.5 paladins that much worse? the high stats made 2nd ed ones good, but, were they really that much better than fighters, rangers, barbarians?In 1st Barbarians were more restrictive than paladins.

I'll stop and let that sink in for a minute.

You couldn't have a barbarian in the same party with a cleric until either 4th or 6th level. Barbarians and wizards couldn't associate until like 10th. Barbarians also had a level restriction to what magical items they were allowed to use. There were no barbarians in 2nd outside of Kara Tur that I know of.

What changed? Prior editions wizards were there to cut huge swaths through the 50-100 or so orcs there, so the meleers could hit the Chieftain. When 3.x changed that that's when the meleers started feeling the hurt and the disparity showed up.

I wouldn't say they were better or worse than other classes in prior editions, they were just different.

pjackson
2008-10-22, 10:06 AM
The original point in playing a Paladin was to play a character like Holger Carlson from Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson.
The class was not the only thing part of D&D the book inspired.

I have aleays found paladins an easy class to play and often play character whose behavior conforms to the code even though they are not paladins, sometimes even when not playing D&D (like a SotC character who also wore a red jacket - you get one guess for his nationality and job).