Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Slayer_5 09-06-04, 09:52 AM	Just reading a thread about rating the classes 1 to 11, alot of people ranked paladin as 11 (worst). When looking at paladin in the book, it does seem crappy past lvl 5, but then I played one. I wont argue, you dont get anything much past lvl 5. However, all your abilities increase huge. And yes, i know they are MAD, but heres the defining thing ive found about paladins. They are a self-contained unit, the only class ive seen that works decently in a solo game. D10 HD, Full armour n weapon prof, ability to use the Wooden Cleric, Wicked damage against evil (really, how often do you fight good things?) The diplomacy to deal with neutral creatures, and a Mount incase things go bad and the paladin needs to run. As well as innate healing, and having saves able to go through the roof. In a party of 4+, granted, I dont think id be a pally, However, in smaller games *which im used to* I find the paladin ROCKS!!!
Count Arioch the 28th 09-06-04, 09:54 AM	Odd, I could swear that anyone would put fighter the worst. Paladins peter out at level 5. Fighters do so at level 2. Maybe people burden themselves with fighter 3 so they can get weapon spec at 4. (Or, be like the guy in my group tht's up to fighter 13! I don't know how he manages, but he does. Of course, I've boosted the fighter immensely in my game, but that's beside the point.)
BlaineTog 09-06-04, 10:36 AM	Anyone seen Jaerom Darwind's Paladin Variant? Its quite good, and does not "peter out" ever.
Dark Cyril 09-06-04, 10:46 AM	Check out the Prestige Paladin variant in Unearthed Arcana. It's a 15 level class that continues gaining abilities (aside from remove disease) up until level 15. He also gets to continue advancing as whatever divine spellcasting class he was before instead of being stuck with the sh*tty *ss paladin spell list. And his powers (mount abilities, lay on hands) all act as if the paladin were 3 levels higher than he actually was. Granted no class can take a level until 4th level, it is now possible to have a paladin with weapon specialization and the ability to cast decent divine magic spells. Yummy. And CAt28th: I don't think I've ever heard of the phrase, "fighters suck." They are the most versatile class out there. Seriously, with all the bonus feats they get, they don't need access to spells or mystical abilities. They can become efficient death machines really quickly. Mmmmmm.... great cleave.... vs goblins.... at 15th level.... lol
BlaineTog 09-06-04, 10:51 AM	And CAt28th: I don't think I've ever heard of the phrase, "fighters suck."And you generally won't. Its considered common knowldge, so saying it would be akin to claiming the world is spherical. They are the most versatile class out there.All for naught. I've also found pretty much any caster to be much more versatile as well. Seriously, with all the bonus feats they get, they don't need access to spells or mystical abilities.Sadly, the feats can't compete. They can become efficient death machines really quickly.Not as much as any caster, Barbarian, Rogue, or Monk.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-06-04, 11:03 AM	I think he was being sarcastic, blaine: Look at the last sentence: Mmmmmm.... great cleave.... vs goblins.... at 15th level.... lol Now, why is any DM going to throw non-advanced goblins at level 15 people? Really, the level 15 fighter could kill them all just as quickly by spitting on them, 15th level is pretty uber, even if you're a fighter. (Just not uber compared to everything else at 15th level.)
Yade 09-06-04, 11:10 AM	I don't mean they suck in stats or in abilities, I mean they suck in their ethos and having one in a party can be a real drag. I think of it like taking your strict christian mom to your bachelor party. UGH, I really consider them to be a role playing let down, the quintessential "****-retentive" class. And frankly most people do not play D&D to deal with those people. Most of us playing D&D AVOID those kinds of people. Now I am sure that there are some players out there that have made paladins fun, but for the most part they are a real drag. I will read up on the paladin in the unearthed arcana, it sounds interesting and I have gotten into the habit of not reading "all" of the prestige classes that come out, there are just so many. Fighters don't suck, in my experience they are the most likely to get out of control at lowser levels. It is possible, within legal character construction rules, to have a character that is like a machine gun with a bow at level 5. UNfortunately at higher levels fighters start to lose serious ground. A single fighter charging an army is not as daunting as a sorcerer standing on a cliff brewing up something wicked for them.
Tevandel Surefacet 09-06-04, 11:12 AM	And you generally won't. Its considered common knowldge, so saying it would be akin to claiming the world is spherical. Oh, I don't Know Blaine, given the level of argument that this simple statement has generated in previous threads I suspect it is more on the order of "Hockey is a better than Basketball". ;) There are lots of arguments both ways on Fighter. But this thread is about Paladins so... I happen to think the Paladins make a better PC than a base class but I have played and DMed paladins and enjoyed both. Which I think is the best measure of the goodness of a class. No a Pally can’t measure up to a fully decked out Wiz , Cleric or Druid at the height of their power but basically nothing can.
amethal 09-06-04, 11:13 AM	Aren't we lucky that D&D is a roleplaying game? I'd prefer to have a fighter in the party with a well thought out history and personality, whose player is committed to roleplaying him properly, than any number of cleric 7/prestige paladin 10 characters whose player just wants to kill as many things as possible and thinks this is the best tool for the job.
Angel Black 09-06-04, 11:24 AM	In WotC Board - K.I.S.S., how do YOU rate the classes? - I gave paladins a 2/11(even though I hate to play one). Lets see why. Good things: -A few Good Divine Spells -Pretty Good Fighter -Paladin has awesome abilities (detect evil,smite evil,..) -Paladin’s Mount Bad Things -Alignment: Lawful good. (Munchkins are ALWAYS chaotic) -1st spell at 6th level -At 20th level you can cast 3 Neutralize Poison(Bards can do that at 14th) -if you change your alignment you lose all paladin spells and abilities. -If you broke the paladin code you lose all paladin spells and abilities. So many people look at the really bad things and say this is a weak class.For the KISS rate I took in count only power , and very few drawbacks (do a good roleplaying and that alignment restriction can work in your favor) as a solo class Plus if you become/are an aasimar paladin you can destroy almost anything very easily.Even more be a paladin for a few levels, and ask for a good PrC, then your enemies will know what really means Fear. For Fighters, most people take levels of fighters only because they want some combat feats to met the requirements of a PrC.To become a highlevel fighter you have to be smart and choose really good feats, this path is really rough but is good for those who like to be Dwarven defenders or Order of the Bow Initiate. I gave fighters a 4 (2 levels below paladin) at the Kiss rating
Dark Cyril 09-06-04, 11:34 AM	I think he was being sarcastic, blaine: Look at the last sentence: Now, why is any DM going to throw non-advanced goblins at level 15 people? Really, the level 15 fighter could kill them all just as quickly by spitting on them, 15th level is pretty uber, even if you're a fighter. (Just not uber compared to everything else at 15th level.) No... I wasn't. And by the way, I've been in a situation where myself and another fighter (both 7th - 8th level) were taken down by goblins. They managed to surround us and pin us down. Boy was that ever embarrasing. I'm not going to take away from the main point of the thread, but I just want to say one thing. Aren't we lucky that D&D is a roleplaying game? I'd prefer to have a fighter in the party with a well thought out history and personality, whose player is committed to roleplaying him properly, than any number of cleric 7/prestige paladin 10 characters whose player just wants to kill as many things as possible and thinks this is the best tool for the job. You're preaching to the choir, hear hear. And also, to agree with Angel Black. You just have to play smart, and you should be able to keep up with the other classes. And besides, who else is going to protect the wizard when the barbarian is down for the count due to too many hit points lost during raging?
Gnarl 09-06-04, 11:44 AM	From a power gaming point of view, I have to disagree. Paladins don't suck at all. They have huge saves, healing capabilities, huge damage against bad guys, and lets face it, most bosses are bad guys, otherwise why would the paly have gone on adventure in the first place ? Now on the other hand, from a role playing point of view and for the rest of the players, they suck. It's just annoying, Paladins are not meant to be tolerant, and for that, they're full of crap. A player playing a paladin without at least asking the other players if they don't mind either doesn't understand a thing about paladins, either is a selfish bratt. Technically speaking, having a paladin in a group can totally ruin the whole spirit of the game (which is all about fun, isn't it ?).
CrusaderX 09-06-04, 12:24 PM	I don't mean they suck in stats or in abilities, I mean they suck in their ethos and having one in a party can be a real drag. I think of it like taking your strict christian mom to your bachelor party. UGH, I really consider them to be a role playing let down, the quintessential "****-retentive" class. And frankly most people do not play D&D to deal with those people. Most of us playing D&D AVOID those kinds of people. Now I am sure that there are some players out there that have made paladins fun, but for the most part they are a real drag. You need to be more open-minded. There's no rule anywhere that forces a Paladin to have a specific personality. Personality is provided by the player's imagination, not by the rules. I can easily imagine a cool and fun Paladin just as I can imagine an uncool and boring Rogue. It's all about flexing your creative muscles. Granted, not everyone can do this well. ;)
CrusaderX 09-06-04, 12:27 PM	It's just annoying, Paladins are not meant to be tolerant, and for that, they're full of crap. I'm sorry, I must have missed that rule. Please tell me where it says that Paladins are not meant to be tolerant. At least, not as tolerant as any other class who fights evil for a living (you know, like good-aligned Fighters, Rangers, Clerics, Wizards, etc.). Thanks!
(Psi)SeveredHead 09-06-04, 01:04 PM	Paladins peter out at level 5. Fighters do so at level 2. I think there's a typo there. Fighters don't peter out until level 12. Then, all of a sudden, there's nothing good for them.
thinkhard 09-06-04, 01:18 PM	I don't know if i'm repeating anything that's been said; i didn't read all the way through. But look at it this way: paladins make decent meatshields for spell casters, meaning they have great HP and great combat ability, if not as specialized as a fighter. On top of this, really look into what a mount can do. It's insane. When i fought mounted with my paladin, i rarely ran into trouble. The smites are exremelypowerful, especially when you check the 3.5 rules of smite going up in uses per day. when you go epic and take great smiting, i mean, holy crap, it's insane. And if you PrC Fist of raziel, your mount isnt as good, but you are evil's bane! They can't stand before you. I've always been a huge fan of paladins. Its between that and samurai for my favorite class. Check out an extended paladin PrC: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=302538
Jaerom Darkwind 09-06-04, 02:37 PM	Powerwise, paladins rock. Especially my paladin class. :smirk: However, the problem is that people never play them well, and for that reason everyone associates the class itself with bad roleplay. You can take a player woh could come up with badasss stories for any other character class, and roleplay them to perfection, but when you give them a paladin they feel like they've got to be a cookie-cutter character. The problem is, this is a flaw in the players, and so you can't fix it by changing the class. So honestly, the only way to stop these bad paladin experiences is to restrict the paladin class to your good role-players. Clarification: Yes, I do think anyone who plays a paladin as a "lawful-stupid paladin-bot" is a bad roleplayer, no ifs, ands, or buts. You suck and should find a different class to play. Stop giving my favorite class a bad reputation.
thinkhard 09-06-04, 02:40 PM	w00t. More power to ya, my paladin defending friend. I feel like the class is a difficult one to play as well, but i still love it.
Ardent 09-06-04, 04:59 PM	Powerwise, paladins rock. Especially my paladin class. :smirk: I will only agree with that statement if you're talking about a Faerunian Paladin using the fully expanded Paladin spell list (or a similar situation: IE Dragonlance Paladin/Knight Munchkin). In which case, yes, Paladins get amazing combat spells and nothing on the utility end (unless you consider healing utility). Core D&D Paladins are horrific. A Fighter 10/Cleric 10 not only is as effective as the Paladin in combat, but they can cast higher level spells often at the same spell level as the Paladin (and in actuality about seven levels sooner) without feeling like they're too feat-less to be an effective melee combatant. Smite is the poor man's Power Attack feat tree, really. Lay on Hands? Who cares? I spontaneously cast cure spells. Cure disease? I can easily prep that spell if there's no other Cleric in the party. Special steed? Well, unless your DM is incredibly kind to Paladins and lets them get really awesome steeds like dragons, hippogriffs, griffins or (my favorite) polymorphed archmages who retain their casting ability most of the Paladin's special steeds are easily tracked down, captured and trained by the group's Ranger for everyone. That IMHO is the big break factor for Paladins. A particularly bad multiclass option does their job better than they do. However, the problem is that people never play them well, and for that reason everyone associates the class itself with bad roleplay. You can take a player woh could come up with badasss stories for any other character class, and roleplay them to perfection, but when you give them a paladin they feel like they've got to be a cookie-cutter character. The problem is, this is a flaw in the players, and so you can't fix it by changing the class. This is patently untrue. We had an absolutely amazingly well-written backstory to our Faerunian Paladin and as far as the group was concerned, metagame wise, the Paladin was good for talking to NPCs (thanks to a high Charisma modifier) and that was about it. Now, being a Faerunian Paladin he had access to a ton of spells that made him a slightly better nod than a Fighter, but he still only survived five levels (7th to 12th) before biting dirt in a battle with a demon (that he managed to slay at the same time) and the player requested a new sheet to create a new character. It's not that he wasn't enjoying the character, it was that he could see the writing on the wall: as the party escalated toward Epic levels even his Faerunian spell list wasn't going to let him keep up with the Clerics and the Rogue was at the point where she was starting to do insane damage. So honestly, the only way to stop these bad paladin experiences is to restrict the paladin class to your good role-players. Clarification: Yes, I do think anyone who plays a paladin as a "lawful-stupid paladin-bot" is a bad roleplayer, no ifs, ands, or buts. You suck and should find a different class to play. Stop giving my favorite class a bad reputation. By and large good role-players are hard to find. What's more difficult to find is a group dynamic where the typical Paladin's honor code can reside without creating friction. It takes an AMAZING role-player to pull those situations off...and that's only if you're lucky. You need an entire group of great role-players to manage typically. Here's a clue-in about great role-players: most prefer to avoid the "everyone's lawful stupid, let's go hack n' slash evil goblins or something" kind of gaming. High-intrigue and high-politic games just don't bend well to Paladins, even ones with more leniant honor codes than I'd guess are typical. Which isn't to say the group can't benefit from the presence of characters with honor codes...just not ones as stupidly rigid and counter-companion as a Paladin's. I don't think it's an accident that the Paladins of history have not been widely accepted by their fellows as men of honor and respect. I imagine their modus operandi of individual crusading was more to maintain a safe distance from their fellows than any noblesse oblige or other sense of moral duty. Chivalry is as much as rationalization of Europe's brutal battles as Bushido is of Japan's. You'd be incredibly hard-pressed to find factually evident examples of individuals being held to every facet of chivalry (or bushido) as a paragon. Paragons don't exist...which is why they make such great paragons. ;)
thinkhard 09-06-04, 05:14 PM	You only think about a paladin's spells. Thats not the point. The point of a paladin is lay on hands, divine grace, immunity to disease, perfect BAB, d10, smiting, and the MOUNT. When you give your mount the appropriate monster feats per hit die and couple it with the special abilities, it is a wickedly potent battle ally. Spell casting is something a paladin rarely needs, unless trying to support a group with a limited amount of cure spells.
Archtyrant Terevoth 09-06-04, 05:22 PM	In 3.0, it may well be true that the paladin was awful past the early levels. You got him for divine grace, and then you got out. But in 3.5, those extra smites are well worth it. You're getting more of them, and you're getting more damage per smite. Consider that if you've got 26 charisma, you're getting a +8 to hit each smite. If you power attack wtih that +8, you're getting a +16 to damage and that hasn't even counted your paladin level yet. I'd have to say that the bard is by far the worst class at high levels, followed by the fighter. Definitely not the paladin though.
Jaerom Darkwind 09-06-04, 05:26 PM	I will only agree with that statement if you're talking about a Faerunian Paladin using the fully expanded Paladin spell list (or a similar situation: IE Dragonlance Paladin/Knight Munchkin). Actually, I was talking about the variant paladin I developed, that can still be found in my sig. It give the paladin the pick-me-up it always deserved. Finally those RP-restrictions serve their purpose--to balance the class's power. Chivalry is as much as rationalization of Europe's brutal battles as Bushido is of Japan's. You'd be incredibly hard-pressed to find factually evident examples of individuals being held to every facet of chivalry (or bushido) as a paragon.100% true. But hey, this is fantasy. Magic never existed in midieval europe or asia either.
thinkhard 09-06-04, 05:32 PM	I still cant believe you guys continue ignoring the mount. Plus, if you multiclass a paladin improperly, you can't continue to level other things up you may want to. And what about increased remove disease? AND LAY ON HANDS! A 20th level paladin with a 26 Cha can automatically heal 160 hp in a day!
Jaerom Darkwind 09-06-04, 05:39 PM	I still cant believe you guys continue ignoring the mount. Plus, if you multiclass a paladin improperly, you can't continue to level other things up you may want to. And what about increased remove disease? AND LAY ON HANDS! A 20th level paladin with a 26 Cha can automatically heal 160 hp in a day!Remove disease is worthless. It's just filler, and is only ever useful in a few RP situations. The special mount is worse than worthless, because most campaigns have little use for mounts beyond transportation, and any old horse will work for that. Lay on hands is the only one you listed that's actually useful.
Lanoitakude 09-06-04, 05:41 PM	Responding to an earlier statement about Paladins being good solo'ers, I'd have to say a cleric or druid will out-solo a paladin any day, and moreso the druid. I will say that the Paladin's abilities are very front-loaded (don't say "But those Remove Disease abilities keep comin'!"). The only thing goin' for the Paladin as he progresses is Smite. The Mount isn't especially good. It is better than a normal mount, but not game breaking. I'd rather play a Favored Soul than a Paladin. You can retain a lot of the same flavor as the Paladin, but with full caster progression, wings, resistences and etc etc. I once played a Crusades style Paladin. My party got a kick out of him, because he would attempt to kill anyone who came up as evil on his radar. He was heading toward the Fist of Raziel PrC, to compliment his constant smiting. Power-wise, Paladins pale before the other divine characters (druids/clerics/favored soul). Flavor-wise, they are no worse off than any other class, although that LG can throw a wrench into the party mechanics sometimes. Just some thoughts.
Cardinal Teplin 09-06-04, 05:44 PM	If you have a 26 chr? Um.... The reason why most people seem to think paladin's suck is twofold. First because, at least in terms of abilities, they are profoundly unexciting, and not terribly effective. Past medium level they get very little of interest - a few low level spells, better smites, and a better below-par turn undead. They get better at everything consistently. At high level a paladin has excellent saves, a good mount, good hp, good selection of low-level spells, and so on. But nothing they havn't had since 5th level. The second problem is stats. Yes, if you have 26 chr, you have excellent saves and turn undead abilties. But you won't have a 26 chr unless you are playing a very very very high stats game. Paladins need everything to be reasonably good, with str and chr as high as possible, a decent wisdom and constitution, and at least an ok intelligence if you want to get into the social side of being a paladin, and pick some chivalric skills. You can dump dex, I guess, but even for that you will suffer. The result is that, at least for most games, paladins have low stats compared to their fighters barbarians and clerics, who concentrate on fewer stats. I'd happily play a paladin, but only in a game where we rolled stats and stuck with them. In a points buy, you're really hurting. I'll not say anything about the role-play side save that I've seen people who IMHO play paladins badly really enjoy them, and people who play them well get frustrated by their own ineffectuality. I don't think its anything to do with role-playing the lifestyle or code. I think it is a lot to do with a lack of interesting mechanical developement at higher levels. Fighers customise, barbarians get better rage and DR, spellcasters get good high-level spells, paladins get comparatively little.
thinkhard 09-06-04, 05:45 PM	The paladins mount is bonded to him, receives increases in intelligence, AC, gains special abilities, improved evasion, emphatic link...it increases in hit die! No other mounts except special mounts do that. And the increase allows access to feats to specialize your mount to your combat style. And if you take the celestial mount feat, then its just awesome. And if you use variant special mounts out of defenders of the faith and so on, your paladin can be very powerful. Flying mounts and so on...
(Psi)SeveredHead 09-06-04, 05:53 PM	The paladins mount is bonded to him, receives increases in intelligence, AC, gains special abilities, improved evasion, emphatic link...it increases in hit die! No other mounts except special mounts do that. And the increase allows access to feats to specialize your mount to your combat style. And if you take the celestial mount feat, then its just awesome. And if you use variant special mounts out of defenders of the faith and so on, your paladin can be very powerful. Flying mounts and so on... Wild Cohort ... do a search on this site. Okay, it doesn't get the Int bonus, but that's actually better. No nonsense about riding Mr. Ed. And actually, the paladin mount is too weak, especially in terms of defense. Fewer Hit Dice (and hp) than the rider, and since the rider isn't going to give it much in the way of magic items it's saves and AC are going to suck compared to, well, anything it faces. I've got a DM who absolutely hates it when horses attack, too, so I'm even less interested in mount attacks than I normally am.
Jaerom Darkwind 09-06-04, 06:01 PM	But few people will ever being fighting in epic battles with cavalry charges and whatnot, so the mount is almost never actually useful. It is better than a familiar, though, because you cvan shunt it off to the celestial planes without problems and only pull it out when you need it.
thinkhard 09-06-04, 06:07 PM	Wild Cohort ... do a search on this site. Okay, it doesn't get the Int bonus, but that's actually better. No nonsense about riding Mr. Ed. And actually, the paladin mount is too weak, especially in terms of defense. Fewer Hit Dice (and hp) than the rider, and since the rider isn't going to give it much in the way of magic items it's saves and AC are going to suck compared to, well, anything it faces. I've got a DM who absolutely hates it when horses attack, too, so I'm even less interested in mount attacks than I normally am. I dont know how your build your mounts, but i payed special attention to mine. I gave it appropriated armors and such, it had an AC almost the same as mine, sometimes higher, sometimes lower, throughout the campaign. The problem is people who have mounts don't think to use them or improve them. If you give it the propper attention it becomes a great ally, and yes they do gain intelligence bonuses according to your level as paladin. I had a griffan mount once that had snatch; it would attack an enemy, grapple him, and fling him from the brawl. The spell heal mount on the paladins list makes mounts useful, and the mounted combat feat can greatly improve its chance for survival. Certain DM's have an inherent distaste for mounted combat though, and in those situations i could understand forgoeing a special mount.
Darrett 09-06-04, 06:33 PM	I don't find Fighters suck at all. In fact, I find them to be the best toe to toe fighting class in the game. It's all based on what game world you play in, how the DM handles things, and in what manner you set up the Fighter. If you play a fighter as a solo character, he's not that amazing. Give him a few buff spells from your friendly group Cleric, and he's a beast.
angryman 09-07-04, 11:35 AM	Thats not the point. The point of a paladin is lay on hands, divine grace, immunity to disease, perfect BAB, d10, smiting, and the MOUNT. Oh sorry, I thought the point of a paladin was a pure soul dedicated to good and the pursuit of virtue. I'm going to have to beat you with the Minmaxer Smiting Stick now... Paladins are fun. Yay for paladins. If you don't like them, don't play them. They're so crap my level 13 paladin/3 Knight of the Middle Circle was the biggest meatgrinder in a group with an Ogre Fighter/Barbarian and other big smackers.
thinkhard 09-07-04, 12:50 PM	Thats not the point. The point of a paladin is lay on hands, divine grace, immunity to disease, perfect BAB, d10, smiting, and the MOUNT. Oh sorry, I thought the point of a paladin was a pure soul dedicated to good and the pursuit of virtue. I'm going to have to beat you with the Minmaxer Smiting Stick now... Paladins are fun. Yay for paladins. If you don't like them, don't play them. They're so crap my level 13 paladin/3 Knight of the Middle Circle was the biggest meatgrinder in a group with an Ogre Fighter/Barbarian and other big smackers. I agree that you should play a class for fun or flavor, but this whole debate was about whether or not paladins had a strength as a class. I was pointing out its many capabilities for strength.
(Psi)SeveredHead 09-07-04, 01:25 PM	I dont know how your build your mounts, but i payed special attention to mine. I gave it appropriated armors and such, it had an AC almost the same as mine, sometimes higher, sometimes lower, throughout the campaign. You realize that this is expensive, right? Unless you're made out of money you're going to have a hard time replicating all your defensive items on the mount as well as yourself... and it's lower Hit Dice means it's still going to be weak. and yes they do gain intelligence bonuses according to your level as paladin. I was talking about Wild Cohort. The Wild Cohort feat does not give your mount an Intelligence bonus. That's cool.
thinkhard 09-07-04, 04:05 PM	I admit it was expensive, but i did not spend to the point where it had all the same enhancements as me, and i still came out more effective in combat than the other players. The reason its AC was similar to mine was because of the AC enhancements it gets, a good base AC, and a moderate amount of money spent on it. The trick to the mount is to not just choose a dumb old warhorse....everybody thinks thats what your special mount is supposed to be and always is...choose a good base creature at an appropriate level that you can take it (delayed gratification) and it will make your mount far more intimidating. I had a griffon mount in one campaign and a celestial warhorse in another (celestial mount feat). One more point, which will only apply to a few people on this forum: When gestalting, Paladins are a great focus class for you character to give him direction and flavor, and can be greatly complimented by many other classes depending on the needs for the Paladin.
Yade 09-07-04, 04:31 PM	the paladin morale code is enough to counter any cool class abilites. As humans we are inherrently chaotic, we all use situational ethics. Imagin your little girl dying in the back seat and the guy driving the car refuses to speed or run any lights, uses his blinkers diligently and is polite to all other traffic. Now imagine yourself throwing him on he pavement and getting to the hospital on time. I agree that it takes a phenominal role-player to play a good paladin, but in the end there is not enough benefit from never being able to use discretion or situational ethics. Moreover, the ethos of the class leads young players or poor role-players to behave like a stick-in-the-mud proctoring the actions of all of the other players. I am a good person and I generally play good characters, but one needs flexibility in the area of morale code to truly be successful in life. An chaotic good player can lie if it's needed they can avoid discolsing information if it is called for, a paladin is a parrot that sits there and squawks out all of the secrets and is gnerally more of a liability than an asset.
Yade 09-07-04, 04:37 PM	Any Dm worth his merit should use the paladins code against him. In the world of politics there are a lot of grey areas. A DM should have the bad guys question only the Paladin, because well designed NPCs know that the goody-goody will always betray the secrets of a party in leiu of lying. A good Dm should make the party wish that they had made all of their plans without the goody-goody near by so that he can't spill. Upon returning from an adventure the employer should exclusively question the paladin and force out any secrets, the taxpayer should come to his room and demand a full recount of all loot so that he can tax it. etc... Paladins are less tolerable than thieves.
thinkhard 09-07-04, 04:51 PM	the paladin morale code is enough to counter any cool class abilites. As humans we are inherrently chaotic, we all use situational ethics. Imagin your little girl dying in the back seat and the guy driving the car refuses to speed or run any lights, uses his blinkers diligently and is polite to all other traffic. Now imagine yourself throwing him on he pavement and getting to the hospital on time. I agree that it takes a phenominal role-player to play a good paladin, but in the end there is not enough benefit from never being able to use discretion or situational ethics. Moreover, the ethos of the class leads young players or poor role-players to behave like a stick-in-the-mud proctoring the actions of all of the other players. I am a good person and I generally play good characters, but one needs flexibility in the area of morale code to truly be successful in life. An chaotic good player can lie if it's needed they can avoid discolsing information if it is called for, a paladin is a parrot that sits there and squawks out all of the secrets and is gnerally more of a liability than an asset. Where, anywhere, in the PH does it say that paladins are inflexible? If you think of the moral code as so stringent, then why don't you hate alignment? and yes the moral code is meant to make the class harder, but a paladin doesnt have to be a "goody-goody." thats an uncreative view. The paladin just has to do "what is right" as much as possible. Saving a girls life would take precedent over traffic laws, especially because the law is only as good as it is enforced, and people would definately understand and let you by for that. Besides, it never says a paladin cannot be discrete. Witholding information is the right of a person, so it wouldn't be necessary for a paladin to reveal secrets to avoid lying. You make paladins sound so ignorant, which belies a lack of understanding the class.
thinkhard 09-07-04, 04:54 PM	The only thing that i see as a problem is that paladins cannot knowingly associate with evil creatures. But associating is different than duress by far, so if a Paladin is being forced to deal or work with an evil person due to dire circumstances, this is not a break of his code. I honestly think many of you people have either played terrible paladins or were in parties with crappy RP's who didn't know what to do with their character.
king_of_evil007 09-07-04, 05:19 PM	Where in the PHB does it say that Paladins are inflexible? They can't even associate with evil people. That means talk to, help (so by the rules, a Paladin can't even attempt to redeem one, since you're associating yourself with the guy), or do anything but smite him to the ground. Then, they get punished for killing somebody without attempting to redeem him. If a Paladin sees a schoolyard bully beating on a child, all he can do is ignore the guy (which would probably go against his CoC, loss of class abilities), kill him (probably an evil act), beat him to the ground (probably a neutral act) or grab the victim and run like hell. Try to say "Hey, stop!" Sorry, that's association. Bye bye class abilities. Granted, all of the above is a very, very strict and exaggerated (and ridiculous) sense of the rules, but really. (I was almost entirely sarcastic above, so please, don't treat the above paragraph as anything even remotely serious) I mean, the guy can't even associate with bad people. I can see if the CoC said "Cannot associate with individuals who the Paladin knows to be committing or planning to perform evil acts" but it doesn't. It means anybody who's alignment is evil. This includes the merchant who drives up prices to make more money for himself, a schoolyard bully, somebody who just prefers himself over others, and others. I actually saw a thread where many people agreed that Robin Hood was evil because the "ends never justify the means". That's why the Paladin is inflexible. 'Nuff said. The reason for the Paladin to be the best "soloer" is because he regularly drives away good meaning party members :D Just my 2 gil, -KoE
thinkhard 09-07-04, 05:38 PM	I dont understand how so many expanded interpritations for extreme inflexibility come from a vague word like associate. What is meant by the word associate? Thats OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. I say associate implys brotherhood or bonding, or premeditated interraction...if your strictly involved because of the circumstances, what's the big deal? I have a feeling people just hate the paladins they have had experiences with, and thus far decide to potray the class as a sUx0|2.
jagggar 09-07-04, 06:09 PM	I've got an idea, how about we look up the silly word. Associate, dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=associate) I plan for the next character I run to be a Paladin. I might go with cleric if I can find a Lay on Hands variant. For a homebrew world I'm creating, there's going to be at least two main Paladin codes, one will be lG in tone, the other Lg. The lG would more often loose paladinhood because they're too merciful, the Lgs because they become rules-lawyers in a sense.
Finarin Panjoro 09-07-04, 06:21 PM	Associate means to become partners or friends. So that means that a paladin can have all the contact he wants with evil people (without killing them) as long as he doesn't make them friends or partners in his endeavors. In other words he can't adventure with them for an extended period of time. There may be absolutely nothing a paladin can do against someone who is lawful evil, but won't break the law. However he still can't befriend that person unless they show a willingness to change. There are some of the most narrow-minded interpretations of the paladin code on this thread that I've ever seen. No wonder some of you don't think paladins are any fun. You play them as lawful stupid. Paladins are not required to do anything immediately by their code. That means that they can wait for the right time to address something. They don't even have to attack demons on sight if it is a tactically unwise decision. They are lawful so they understand the needs of a group, which includes the party. They don't make decisions for the party becuase they have to take the parties goals, desires, and safety into account when making decisions. It's part of being lawful! Your chaotic good ranger is more likely to run off and attack his favored enemy at an inopportune moment than your lawful good paladin is because the paladin values structure and team cohesion. Paladins are excellent choices for any group of adventurers, both in terms of power and playability, as long as the player himself doesn't hamstring his character's personality by behaving in annoying and unnecessary ways.
Ardent 09-07-04, 07:13 PM	Associate means to become partners or friends. So that means that a paladin can have all the contact he wants with evil people (without killing them) as long as he doesn't make them friends or partners in his endeavors. In other words he can't adventure with them for an extended period of time. There may be absolutely nothing a paladin can do against someone who is lawful evil, but won't break the law. However he still can't befriend that person unless they show a willingness to change. Which, not surprisingly, rules Paladins out in most of the groups boasting role-players of a good enough caliber to really make them shine. Role-playing in D&D often begins with a CN whatever-the-party-needs. CN is sort of like the learning alignment. You have no idea what's expected of other alignments, so you start out with one that has no real restrictions. Some players never move beyond this alignment, while some begin to branch out and test their ability to play (CG is far and away the most popular alignment amongst my D&D group, for the record, although we've seen the spectrum many times over). CN often treads into evil with newbies, which makes the Paladin a poor choice of companion. Further to the point, the first area of exploration after CN is typically towards evil (probably Neutral Evil most commonly) and then good. By the time the party is getting ready to tinker with good characters someone's already off on the "skewed character idea" tangent and has their Chaotic Evil Cleric of Death all mapped out when someone brings up Paladin which, as a result, is probably immediately vetoed. Class niche killed. There are some of the most narrow-minded interpretations of the paladin code on this thread that I've ever seen. No wonder some of you don't think paladins are any fun. You play them as lawful stupid. I haven't played or seen a Paladin played as lawful stupid at a pen & paper session in close to ten years. Lawful stupid went away around the same time I started messing around with LN characters. I took all the law-abiding, the reminders about native customs and tossed the general vein of goodwill and everyone figured out exactly how Paladins should probably be handled. Adding in the vein of goodwill (or the crusade against evil) to the lawful archetype I'd fostered with a few characters created a couple of memorable, but ultimately mechanically challenged Paladins (after AD&D, anyway -- AD&D Paladins were pretty well worth the 17 Charisma dump). Paladins are not required to do anything immediately by their code. That means that they can wait for the right time to address something. They don't even have to attack demons on sight if it is a tactically unwise decision. They are lawful so they understand the needs of a group, which includes the party. They don't make decisions for the party becuase they have to take the parties goals, desires, and safety into account when making decisions. It's part of being lawful! On the other hand, the Paladin typically boasts the best interaction skills in an archetypal party, which means the Paladin slides into the leadership role. If the Paladin has a low-average Int or Wis score (not uncommon given the need for physicals and Charisma) he's not terribly suited to make tactical decisions and very probably SHOULD blunder through situations like a demon encounter. Your chaotic good ranger is more likely to run off and attack his favored enemy at an inopportune moment than your lawful good paladin is because the paladin values structure and team cohesion. I can't remember the last CG Ranger I've seen...NG or NE is somewhat more typical these days (because honestly Rangers shouldn't care either way on the law vs chaos issue: they're removed from both sources of law and sources of chaos in the wilderness...it's just natural/neutral). If he did decide to dart off after a favored enemy (an entirely IC choice for ANY Ranger, regardless of alignment) guess who'd be tasked to go persuade him otherwise? Paladins are excellent choices for any group of adventurers, both in terms of power and playability, as long as the player himself doesn't hamstring his character's personality by behaving in annoying and unnecessary ways. I only agree with this if you have an expanded spell list or the DM is incredibly kind regarding Paladin mounts (and keeps things away from the dungeoncrawl enough for said mount to be useful). Paladins, however, should always be played as individuals of strong convictions. When faced with a dilemma about whether to foster group cohesion or destroy something they're sworn to destroy (or find something they're sworn to find, etc) their choice is already pre-determined. The speed with which the character reaches that decision is up to the player, but it's ultimately the same result: party disbanding. Paladins fracture all but the most stereotypical Crusaders for Good kind of parties....a party type that's notoriously boring to play amongst good role-players.
thinkhard 09-07-04, 07:45 PM	Thought i don't agree with you, i see your point and perspective. But if i can't bring you around to my point of view, maybe i can work off of yours. If a paladin disbands from his party or puts a value above a need in the midst of a dillema, that makes for great party drama. The fact that the class might foster such dillemas makes it great for roleplay in the first place. What are the most exciting moments in a party other than when the characters are fighting over a dillema, and theres possible betrayal, abandonment (temporary), and even a little PVP action? Some people do not like the conflict, some people thrive on it. The fact that a paladin can become such a controversial class, i think, is a credit to its own value. It doesnt allow you to be joe-shmoe minmaxer all the time, making decisions soley based on mantaining strength. That in itself is what i think makes Paladin a great flavorful, and fun to play, class.
Finarin Panjoro 09-08-04, 10:06 AM	Ardent, You may not have seen lawful stupid or chaotic good rangers in a long time, but I assure you they are alive and well in the hobby. Heck, lawful stupid is alive and well in this very thread. Just check most of the posters who hate paladins. Most of them claim that they hate paladins because of how he HAS to interact with the rest of the party and the world. They're also all wrong about him being required to act that way. Paladins are often leaders in parties, true. But Bards are better face men and rogues can be if they focus on social skills. As far as party cohesion goes, if the players are playing heroic characters (non-evil) then there is no problem. The game is not meant to include evil characters (it explicitly states this in the PHB). So the problem is not with the paladin, its with the chaotic evil cleric of death. If the biggest complaint is that you can't have an evil character when there is a paladin present then the problem is not the paladin's. Obviously someone in the party wants to be heroic or he wouldn't be playing a paladin, so the problem then lies with the person who wants to play something diametrically opposed to this. The players need to work out what type of game they want and then act accordingly as a group to make it happen. There is absolutely no problem with paladins in any party of non-evil characters. Chaotic characters might create some interesting situations, but interesting situations are why we play the game.
Jkol the Butcher 09-08-04, 12:03 PM	Personally, my opinion is that the biggest limitation on a paladin is the need for too many stats. At the very least, it is still a better class option than a fighter. He wears the same armour, attacks at the same level with the same weapons and has a whole bunch of divine abilities to back them up. I find that too many feats are very situation specific, so the fighter isn't all that well off. Divine health is an amazing ability. Rats, Ghouls, and werecreatures are just some examples of dangerous, disease carrying foes. The fact is, most dnd worlds, have less disease than they should. Sure clerics and paladins can heal diseases, but airborne/waterborne diesases probably spread faster than they can be healed. Not to mention that there should be a good number of evil clerics acting to spread disease, and promising healing to only the most devout of followers. Futhermore this is still a medieval setting. Even if a city or town does have sewers, there is still no sanitation, eventually raw sewage goes back into a water supply, perhaps it is down river, but somebody gets it... And what about the slums, If people can barely afford to build shacks, what condition will the sanitation be in there... And lets not forget biological warfare... Opposing armies might carry infected items from thier homeland and trade them to unsuspecting travellers heading into enemy towns... Great Tyrants might mastermind a plague to weaken the armies of the world and stage a coup... I think that many DM's (including me) might overlook this because it is easily enough left in the background, and besides which, having your plans ruined because of the common cold etc... is something most players would rather leave in the real world. Perhaps a paladin's anti-disease abilities are underapreciated because most dm's don't give them an opportunity to shine...
FreeTheSlaves 09-08-04, 12:15 PM	The paladin probably got such a poor show of hands because it is a niche class. I have seen them not being appropriate for many campaigns. Imc, we've got 2 of them and I think the guys have done well to distinguish them. One is an arrogant, intimidating, blonde haired nobleman who carries out St Cuthberts will under the protection of divine shield. The other is a pleasant, theologian/royal guardsman, "goth" with a bastard sword & divine might. Dire wolf & Hippogriff mounts. Powerwise, they are fine. Their cool powers are stat intensive and while they can substitute for a missing fighter or cleric they don't displace either's identity. The social skills & good charisma are a real strength to the class. It may be that my campaign is not typical but diplomacy checks are forever being rolled for initial reactions (I prefer intelligent npc's to talk first if appropriate).
angryman 09-08-04, 12:51 PM	If you think a paladin MUST be inflexible, unreasonable, "lawful stupid" and a general pain in the butt, then for god's sake DON'T PLAY ONE BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL A PALADIN IS. Please, play a chaotic neutral rogue or fighter and spare us your silly one-dimensional stereotypes...my god, next person that says the gm must use the paladin's code against him or that he has to be a total ass...
thinkhard 09-08-04, 12:56 PM	I firmly agree that the need for stats is a large limitation. But I still think that doesn't make a paladin a weak or stupid class. In the campaigns i play with my friends, though, we usually have 1 set of good stats, and everybody uses it, so we all have good skills and are balanced. The favorate set of numbers was 18, 16, 14, 14, 12, 12 I know thats extremely high for DND scores, but it was rolled once, and we've used the set over and over since to keep things fair and to make players capable.
Aki Warren 09-08-04, 01:31 PM	I don't think that paladins are overly restricted. I played a Vampire Paladin and managed to do just fine. In my campigians, I treat good and evil a little differently. This could be why Paladins in my group, or any alignment based class, does better. Your alignment describes your actions, but the question is, what is good? Maybe that tyrant is good for the country as a whole, who knows? It's really hard to get people to agree that something is good, so as long as your PC believes he is doing the right thing, he's set. Even without that, paladins are not the uptight people you play them as
thinkhard 09-08-04, 01:36 PM	Vampire Paladin? Very odd....was it a variant, like the Paladin of Slaughter? Or did he have good aligned powers and abilities? Someone suggested a paladin for an evil inclined race I made as an interesting character option...(race in signature, whichever post my signature happens to be attached to.)
egeus52 09-08-04, 02:12 PM	I've not often played paladins but on the occasions that i did the class made for some exciting and memorable roleplaying. He is an excellent protector for the party - there was this one time where the mad (2nd lvl) wizard in our party stood toe to toe with a gelatinous cube and cast burning hands on it, before being swiftly paralysed and engulfed. My paladin (also lvl 2) couldn't risk attacking the ooze with his friend inside, so he waded in and dragged the mad fool from the jelly without a thought for his own wellbeing. Had he been paralysed as well, the party may have been doomed, but if he had stayed clear his friend would have surely died. Only a paladin would take such a risk when the danger to himself was obviously so great. It was heroic and exciting - everything hinged on my saving throws and the adrenaline levels were high. The only other time i played a paladin, my GM allowed some non-LG variants (afterall, other alignments surely have their zealots). As a result i played a Paladin of Sune, who was always more concerned with how he looked when he was doing something, than with the thing itself! He certainly wouldn't have risked blemishing his perfect complexion by diving into an acidic ooze. Not, that is, unless it was to save a thing of beauty, whether it be a maiden or a piece of art! Paladins can be superb fun and if the GM allows variants they can be a little more flexible (although the code of conduct is an important part of all the paladins). Truly the most heroic class! :)
Ardent 09-08-04, 02:18 PM	If you think a paladin MUST be inflexible, unreasonable, "lawful stupid" and a general pain in the butt, then for god's sake DON'T PLAY ONE BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL A PALADIN IS. If you do, go ahead and elaborate. You're obviously very eloquent to get your point across so subtly, I'm sure you can put something simple and cohesive like "What a Paladin is" into words. :rolleyes: Please, play a chaotic neutral rogue or fighter and spare us your silly one-dimensional stereotypes...my god, next person that says the gm must use the paladin's code against him or that he has to be a total ass... As a DM I use every character's code of ethics against them. It's the most expedient way to provoke action from more or less any character. Characters without a code of ethics, few and far between as they are, are likewise provoked by their mercenary nature (i.e. offer wealth instead of the moral high ground). If you're not making use of the PC's moral outlook you're ignoring half of a character's personality and that's not just an injustice to the player, it's an injustice to you as a DM. The character's code of ethics is a much the DM's tool as it is the player's. What both individuals need to keep in mind is that they're working together to tell an interesting story, not against each other. Exploiting a character's obvious weakness for the sake of story expedition shouldn't anger the player. To the contrary, I'm usually flattered when my character's quirks are responsible for an adventure. If you're lost on what exactly any given character's code of ethics is, ask the player. If he shrugs and says he doesn't know, ask him to figure it out. Even if the player just figures out the character is a mercenary, you've got a little bit more information to use to involve that character. With Paladins the problem is the player has very little flexibility to determine the character's code of ethics. Paladins aren't just expected to act a certain way, the rules bind them within certain parameters for interaction. While I don't think that's necessarily fair, I do think there's a reason Paladins are bound in a way that even other classes with alignment restrictions typically are not. The bind shouldn't be ignored, even if you allow it to be finessed.
eggplantm 09-08-04, 03:34 PM	I've played a paladin several times and I think them a very good class but then I like all the classes (except maybe MHB's healer). Since 3.5, paladin got a lot better. The smiting was the main thing to do with them and more per day was great. Other books addition of divine feats really opened the door for paladins, now their turn undead attempts were incredibly useful. Also, if you use the variant in complete divine that instead of turning undead you just damage them, the paladin becomes more of a force against undead. The roleplaying aspect has never bothered me. To me, paladins are warriors against the forces of evil first and foremost so they best serve their gods by smiting evil. My characters were as bloodthirsty as any fighter could be as long as their foes were evil. Against undead and evil outsiders they were even moreso. If I had to rank the paladin on a scale with the other PHB characters, I couldn't give the paladin a 11 (I'd give the 3.0 paladin at least a 10 thought). I'd give the sorcerer a 11 just for the total lack of class abilities but not for lack of fun to play or power. Like I said, I like all the classes. Ranking them 1-11 would be hard to do. On my scale, the difference in many of them would be a fraction of a point.
nice2meetU 09-08-04, 03:57 PM	IMO the 3.0 paladin can be a great roleplaying and ROLLplaying character if u start playing smart and charisma based. My recent paladin has start-attributes as follows: str: 13, dex: 9, con: 10, int: 12, wis:14, cha: 17; My whole party said im insane playing a warrior with con 10 and cha 17 I argued cha is best for paladin because it boosts all his saves. My plan was to become a Foot-Paladin that strikes his enemies with a shield as main weapon ( i played a bit 2 much diablo 2 therefore :D ) Then i saw the potential of the Feats noted down in my Signature, and i could have boosted him more, but i didnt wanted that my group noticed his force be4 lvl 9 (when i did my first 20+ dam and my R-save exceeded 10) I still call him a Paladin even when his Templar lvl exceed his Paladin lvl, because these 3 Paladin lvls marks my art of playing this character. Im still trying unbelieveable feats... but since lvl 8 i didnt fall unconscousness anymore :) As with all non-primary spellcasters the equipment may boost u in really high dimensions, and the paladin has the highest potential. Vampire Paladin, are u insane, or are u LG because ur DM decided u are a alignment exception???? Play Blackguard instead, hes for such situations, build him 5 rogue, then Assasin till u like 2 get Blackguard, Blackguard to 5 and then Assassin to end, the Aura of Despair works great for death attacks and u get a guardian bat! With the Vampires dex u can also qualify for the best feat available in 3.0: Quicker than the Eye, and copy a Manga-Style Vamp^^ But as with all characters i always reckognize, really epic feats are just possible on low lvls as the description with the ooze from egeus52 or mine Paladin named Siegfried Rittman who fell unconsciouness one evening 5 times in fighting vs lizardfolk (we were lvl 3) and he always mentioned 1 hp is enough to play the main tank :); blast these insane Paladins of Tyr :king: Hope Tyr doesnt finds out that i posted this:bow: If players rate Paladin 11 out of 1 best 11 worst, they maybe think first of rollplaying instead of roleplaying. Paladin is also fun if u played a LE ninja be4, as i did :cool: Never forget: rollplaying is to lessen the spend time on encounters, so the roleplaying times increases, or u have 2 fight a lot. Paldin is good for both!
angryman 09-08-04, 11:03 PM	If you do, go ahead and elaborate. You're obviously very eloquent to get your point across so subtly, I'm sure you can put something simple and cohesive like "What a Paladin is" into words. Ardent, thanks you for your compliments. I feel I must indulge you. Actually I was trying to fairly directly critique all the ideas around here that seem to be directed towards thinking paladins must possess certain of the aforementioened traits, i.e., a certain intolerance and catastrophic inability to get along with people who are morally bankrupt. (the chaotic neutral rogues who insist on stealing everything, the psychotic fighter who murders everyone) I wasn't suggesting that I knew the best way to play a paladin, nor that I "know" how to play one; I merely indicated that the stereotype is not the rule and it is due to this stereotype that people have an aversion to playing a paladin, in that they are seen to be intolerant and self-righteous. As a DM I use every character's code of ethics against them. OK, now that you've elaborated your point I can see that it possesses a certain validity insofar as it doesn't interfere with player's enjoyment. Initially, it sounded like you, as so many other DMs, seem to want to make a paladin fall (use his code against him to bind him into an impossible, lose-lose situation) because it's your duty as a DM to do that. Re, the "save one or the other baby" scenario. It's ethically immature. Now if you *meant* that you made characters codes are to be used as a plot device to increase enjoyment, then kudos to you.
amethal 09-09-04, 05:06 AM	As a DM, I find the paladin's code of ethics is very helpful. The characters never start thinking "How come we are always the ones who get offered these exciting missions". Potential employers fall over themselves to hire the party with the Half-celestial paladin with charisma 22 and all those ranks in diplomacy. Not only is he such a charismatic guy, they know he's got to be reliable and trustworthy, and has a code of ethics. I try to leave questions of what is good and what is evil up to the player. For instance, a previous paladin was a fanatical foe of evil, even to the extent of killing young troglodytes in cold blood once he had established they were evil even at that age. Our current paladin would probably have tried to reform them, maybe foster them at a lawful good monastery, which would very likely have failed - per the monster manual, troglodytes are very evil, and these had been in an evil environment for many years. Personally, I prefer the second option but I don't want to roleplay any of the PCs (thats why we have players!) and I don't want to impose my own views on PC paladins so that I'm effectively saying "If you play your character the way you want to rather than the way I want you to, then kiss good bye to your paladin abilities." So far, it has worked well. Obviously some acts will still cost you paladin status however much you protest it is "good" by your character's lights (deliberately spreading fatal diseases amongst populations of "evil" creatures springs to mind) but these are hypothetical situations - people who want to do that sort of thing don't play paladins in the first place.
Badapple 09-09-04, 06:21 AM	A paladin's power often is directly corrolated with the usefulness of his mount in the campaign. Some DMs dislike mounted combat and actively discourage it in their campaigns. That's a pity. Properly equipped a special mount is a very potent addition to the character. The mounts' hp aren't overwhelming, but it's nothing to sneeze at. In the two campaigns since 3.5 came out that I've played with a paladin in the group the mount usually has as much hp as an average non fighter BAB character does. More than the wizards for sure. It's not expensive at all (relatively compared to character wealth for mid level characters) to outfit a mount with plate barding, and that combined with the mounts natural AC bonus winds up giving it a pretty good ac. The mount has 2 hooves and a bite per round, and stacked with a good selection of feats, it can do some damage. (One guy I knew gave his mount improved overrun - oh man now that was nasty) If the enemies ignore the mount and attack the paladin, then the paladin is getting the benefit of the mounts' attacks each round + the paladin gets his +1 bonus for fighting from high ground and the +4 ac bonus for using the mount as cover. On the other hand, if the enemies are attacking the mount then the paladin can simply dismiss his mount back to the outer planes once the mount is reduced to low hit points. The next day the mount can return, fully healed. In the unlikely event a special mount is reduced to below -10 hp before the paladin can dismiss him, the paladin can replace his mount next level. The main thing is, if enemies are attacking the mount they are NOT attacking the paladin. So if you add the mounts HP to the paladin's hp, suddenly a paladin has more *effective* HP than a barbarian! Any player who just uses his special mount for transportation and isn't actively trying to use it in combat as often as he can is leaving a major component and advantage of his class unused. In a campaign where the paladin is allowed to make use of his special mount in at least 50%+ of the encounters, I've noticed paladins seem to be on par with the other melee classes.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-09-04, 09:00 AM	I think there's a typo there. Fighters don't peter out until level 12. Then, all of a sudden, there's nothing good for them. Nope. not a typo. Greater weapon spec if not worth slogging through 12 fighter levels to get, imo. However, YMMV.
Cardinal Teplin 09-09-04, 09:33 AM	>Any player who just uses his special mount for transportation and isn't actively trying to use it in combat as often as he can is leaving a major component and advantage of his class unused. But its hardly unique. Rangers and druids get animal companions that could be ridden. Leadership and several other feats can get you mounts, as can magical items, and potentially a storyline and some skills. Most are replacable if the mount dies, and several are dismissable if on low HP. They may not be quite as good as a paladin mount, but they do the same job. I've seen several people who specialised in mounted combat go for fighter, hospitaller, cleric, etc. and get similar results.
Dracophile 09-21-04, 03:54 AM	If you're worried about squeezing your mount into a dungeon, then just play a strongheart halfling with a dog mount. Eventually shoot for blink dog (and a ring of blinking which will attune itself to the dog), and a progression something like Paladin 5/Halfling Outrider 5/Cavalier 10. Of course...a 13th-level druid wildshaped into a legendary ape and using his/her dire stag animal companion as a mount will make a more effective mounted combatant. :)
Zelphi 09-21-04, 08:01 AM	Yeah right, he aint got no ability but to hit people in melee, and that's it. Well he's got his spells... God dammit do I have to stand up for Paladins as well now? What next? Barbarians? Just because they aint a druid don't mean it aint a good class. They bash evil to pieces, they get loads of benefits for being good and a Paladin. They get divine stuff, at epic levels they pick up epic spells and the like... they have this mount that may be naff, but it can be tough and you can always polymorph it or something. Hell cast animal growth and stoneskin and it'll be fine. Then use buff spells on it... sad that the mounter can't cast these spells - thats why I made an elven Paladin/Wizard/MT once... but you are in a party. Divine feats aid plenty, divine PrC's can aid even more. Core stuff works too, with an array of feats and useful combat spells. It does have some good abilities and its code only restricts some of what it can do. It is very flexible, you just have to be lawful good... anyway attonement comes at little cost if you're genuinely sorry. Or stuff it all and become a Blackguard. Have I slipped into a parrallel dimension? Wait no... someones still complaining about Fighters.
Lina_Inverse 09-21-04, 12:39 PM	*pulls out BoED*D&D is a game of heroic fantasy.where the players play larger than life GOOD GUYS who actully care enough to save the world.anyone complaining about the paladin is prolly playing alot of evil charecters and should be made to play paladins till he stops falling.theres my stance. oh and as for the guy who said use the paladins code against him*bashes him with BoED*read it boy.it might teach you NOT to punish good charecters.
afromonkey 09-21-04, 02:32 PM	bad ability scores shouldn't make a character playable unplayable, should they? Sure didn't in my recent post apocalyptic mutant campaign, although that is obviously far from the norm...
angryman 09-21-04, 11:02 PM	D&D is a game of heroic fantasy.where the players play larger than life GOOD GUYS who actully care enough to save the world. I couldn't have put it better myself. Except Ardent would argue on the point of heroic not equalling good. But meh.
Lina_Inverse 09-22-04, 02:41 AM	D&D is a game of heroic fantasy.where the players play larger than life GOOD GUYS who actully care enough to save the world. I couldn't have put it better myself. Except Ardent would argue on the point of heroic not equalling good. But meh. *pulls up dictionary.com* #1 In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods. #2 A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war. so unless all your PCs are favored of the gods and have divine ansestory.#2 applys. one way or another being a merchanary isnt being heroic(and is still being evil).i would prefer a blackguard PC to those wusses.
Aki Warren 09-22-04, 12:34 PM	I do agree with Zelphi. Paladins are not weak, not by a long shot. They make decent talkers, okay healers, and very good fighters. Mounted combat, when backed up with the right feats, is very powerful. If you throw in a charge with a lance, spirited charge, and a smite evil that's just insane. The damage levels are even higher then that of a barbarian (Although the smite evil ability is limited) I would say that paladins would be considered weak only under the following ways 1) The code. For some reason, people view the code as satanic evil by Wizards. I view it as a good rp device, but frankly, I am quite strange :D 2) If you are in a dungeon and are human. Your mount can't go in, which stinks 3) You aren't fighting evil. And if your fighting good, or perhaps netural, the paladin may just switch sides on the team ;) So, barring Campigian dependent reasons, no he isn't weak. And don't pull that "But in my campigian...". I can say clerics are terrible in my campigian because there no gods and therefore they get no domain spells. Or wizards are weaker then crud because magic is so rare that they are hunted as witches and scrolls are impossible to get.
Kainy 09-22-04, 06:00 PM	I like paladins, but.. the problem is, I tend to play with people who simply cannot control their evil urges. If you think they're underpowered, though, smell this: Smite + spirited charge + lance. Eeew. I mean... EEW. I damn near instakilled a level 20 death knight with that bad boy... if I had been thinking, I would've had holy sword going on the lance at that very moment, and would've done nearly double the poor thing's HP in damage. Also... No... I wasn't. And by the way, I've been in a situation where myself and another fighter (both 7th - 8th level) were taken down by goblins. They managed to surround us and pin us down. Boy was that ever embarrasing. I'd just like to say that I'm the DM that did that to him. Weak creatures with tactics can overpower even strong fighters. Sure, they killed like 40-60 goblins in the few rounds they managed to stave them off... but there were hundreds and hundreds left.