Why wasn't the Pious Templar's spells made to stack? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Why wasn't the Pious Templar's spells made to stack? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
BigJMoney
06-03-07, 10:15 PM Can anyone explain the decision why the Pious Templar's spell list doesn't stack with a Paladin's spell list? It makes no sense and makes playing a Pal/Piu very bad for using any divine magic, because the player's spell level will always be divided in half.

It seems to me that the Templar is supposed to be a "Paladin in a box" for other classes that don't want to have to multiclass Pal and wait forever to get access to divine spells. Would it be totally against the spirit of the rules to add this line to the Templar's spell description:

"If the Templar's previous class is Paladin, instead of gaining new spells, the character will count her Pious Templar's levels as Paladin levels for determining spells per day and caster level."

=$= Big J Money =$=
Barloch
06-03-07, 11:51 PM Thats exactly it, the templar is essentially the paladin in a box for non-lawful good dieties. Its a great fighter prc. It would really be up to your dm, but I can't see any real problem with it because their fluff is diffrent but they acomplish kind of similar tasks and stations in a temple.
Lotus Crane
06-04-07, 12:51 AM Indeed, if you can reconcile the flavor issues that paladins are supposed to go outside, while Pious Templars are supposed to stay home, there's no real mechanical imbalance from allowing paladins to advance their original spellcasting with PT levels.
Darth Sephiroth
06-04-07, 01:30 AM Indeed, if you can reconcile the flavor issues that paladins are supposed to go outside, while Pious Templars are supposed to stay home, there's no real mechanical imbalance from allowing paladins to advance their original spellcasting with PT levels.

Don't remember the spell lists, but you could add the spells in the Pious Templar List to the Paladin List as well
StevenO
06-04-07, 02:07 PM While the intent may be good I do see a potential problem with that. If you allow the Templar to add to a Paladin's spellcasting level for level (effectively changing the independant spell progression to a +1 casting class) then I should be able to do the exact same for a Cleric.

To me the "fair" way to convert a seperate spellcasting progression into a +1 caster level progression is to do so advance casting at only even levels. Originally (and in some versions) the Bladesinger had its own spell progression inspite of having spells as a prereq but that changed to an even level advancement in the Complete Warrior. I'd allow the 1/2 advancement or seperate progression which makes the choice a little more difficult.
Darth Sephiroth
06-04-07, 04:17 PM Perhaps full Caster level increase but half spell progression.
Ander Spectacular
06-08-07, 11:29 AM Paladin spell progression sucks. The PTs spells scale faster than allowing them stack, so pretty much however you look at it, the PTs is better. Having it stack with the Paladins would provide no real benefit(as Paladin's caster level is low also).
-AS-
Barloch
06-08-07, 01:09 PM While the intent may be good I do see a potential problem with that. If you allow the Templar to add to a Paladin's spellcasting level for level (effectively changing the independant spell progression to a +1 casting class) then I should be able to do the exact same for a Cleric.

To me the "fair" way to convert a seperate spellcasting progression into a +1 caster level progression is to do so advance casting at only even levels. Originally (and in some versions) the Bladesinger had its own spell progression inspite of having spells as a prereq but that changed to an even level advancement in the Complete Warrior. I'd allow the 1/2 advancement or seperate progression which makes the choice a little more difficult.

Theres always the DM who gives you "the look," and then says "no." That seems to work quite well. I don't see a problem for giving a paladin, specifically a paladin, full casting progression with this class, a cleric however I do see a problem with.
Khatoblepas
06-08-07, 05:53 PM +1 level of paladin spellcasting every level.

That's all you need to make it balanced. :) Just like Stalker of Kharrash, or Lyric Thaumaturge, it can go up in a particular class.
The_Shaman
06-08-07, 05:56 PM I guess, but even then a fighter 6/PT 10 will have better casting than paladin 6/ PT 10.
Jaxgaret
06-08-07, 06:02 PM I guess, but even then a fighter 6/PT 10 will have better casting than paladin 6/ PT 10.

:confused:

Is it just me or does that make no sense?
Dyne
06-08-07, 06:52 PM :confused:

Is it just me or does that make no sense?

It's just you.

A 10th-level Pious Templar (keeping it's original spellcasting progression) casts spells than a caster level 16 Paladin (allowing PT levels to improve Paladin casting, instead of having a separate progression).
Iron Klaw Merc
06-08-07, 11:08 PM You could always one the variant class feature Paladins that don't get spell casting, then just use the PT's spell casting when you enter the PrC.
The_Shaman
06-09-07, 08:07 AM It is strange, but true. The iir 2-2-1-1 casting scheme mirrors that of lvl 17 paladins/rangers, so if you are a normal pally you are better off taking the PT in addition to your regular casting.
The_One_Who_Walks
06-09-07, 12:00 PM Don't remember the spell lists, but you could add the spells in the Pious Templar List to the Paladin List as well

The spell lists are the same. Good Templaers use the paladin list, evil ones get the blackguard list, and neutral ones get to choose, same as a neutral cleric choosing turn or rebuke undead.
Jaxgaret
06-09-07, 02:21 PM It's just you.

A 10th-level Pious Templar (keeping it's original spellcasting progression) casts spells than a caster level 16 Paladin (allowing PT levels to improve Paladin casting, instead of having a separate progression).

Ah, I see, you're saying that a Fighter6/PT10 using the normal rules has better casting than a Paladin6/VariantPT10 using the "+1 Palading spellcasting per level" rule for the PT.

But that's comparing apples to oranges. The rules work the same way for both. If you use the same system (either normal rules or the variant rules) for both the Fighter6/PT10 and the Pal6/PT10, the Pal will come out on top in the spellcasting category either way.

I understand where you are coming from, in the spirit of this thread; it was just stated poorly. No offense. I agree with you, Shaman, that the Pious Templar's casting is better than the Pally's.

Perhaps a decent way to give Paladins who go into Pious Templar an edge over other classes is to say that if a character who goes into PT has Paladin spellcasting, they add their CL from their Paladin levels to the CL for PT spellcasting.
The_Shaman
06-09-07, 02:32 PM Ah, my bad. I must have meant that a Fighter/ PT 10 will be better than a lvl 16 paladin. Actually, I consider the templar one of the better paladin PrCs. For a combat-oriented paladin, P 5/ PT 10 / Divine Champion 5 (or 4, which allows for 1 more paladin level - useful with paladin variants that get something better than cure disease) can be a stable option with its weapon specialization, many feats, and okay casting.
Jaxgaret
06-09-07, 02:44 PM Ah, my bad. I must have meant that a Fighter/ PT 10 will be better than a lvl 16 paladin. Actually, I consider the templar one of the better paladin PrCs. For a combat-oriented paladin, P 5/ PT 10 / Divine Champion 5 (or 4, which allows for 1 more paladin level - useful with paladin variants that get something better than cure disease) can be a stable option with its weapon specialization, many feats, and okay casting.

I never really looked at the Pious Templar class before. Wow. It's pretty darn good. Is it just me or does it get a really nice array of benefits for not very much cost? The True Believer feat can actually be fairly useful if you get a good Relic.
The_Shaman
06-09-07, 02:52 PM Well, I'm a bit of a Realms fan and so far the only relics I've seen for it were pretty shabby... But yes, a paladin / templar is quite solid. I don't have my books at the moment, iirc the only problem was that Templar smite had a stable +4 to attack instead of being cha-based.

However, divine grace and mettle are imo quite the combo. There aren't that many fort partial or will partial spells in the PHB, but they tend to be nasty. The +2 to saves vs divine magic from the DC are also nice... or you could be a dwarf (or both).

So it's a good PrC, solid for warriors of any sort, but nothing too incredible. A paladin who chooses it gets a slightly different smite, more feats and possibly weapon mastery (although the way it's written suggests the mastery benefits apply only to the chosen weapon) etc, but loses lay on hands (which can be very good, esp. against undead), the turn progression, celestial companion and a few other minor extras. I would also be glad if there could be a variant with ranger casting, representing templars of nature deities.
Jaxgaret
06-09-07, 04:46 PM Well, I'm a bit of a Realms fan and so far the only relics I've seen for it were pretty shabby...

So it's a good PrC, solid for warriors of any sort, but nothing too incredible.

I haven't really taken a good look at the Relics, I just assumed (probably a bad idea considering that WotC created them) that there were some good ones on the list.

I agree, it's no Fist of Raziel. :)
The_Shaman
06-09-07, 06:39 PM Well, Fist of Raziel would imo be tolerable with pure paladin, nothing too insane ;) .
Ander Spectacular
06-11-07, 09:02 AM Well, Fist of Raziel would imo be tolerable with pure paladin, nothing too insane ;) .

Except with pure Paladin, you would still cast worse than any non-caster/PT mix. Fist of Raziel is a good class for Prestige Paladins and Clerics. Strangely, though, FoR is not that great because its class abilities interact strangely. The 1st level ability is quickly replaced by the 4th level level bonus feat of Sanctify Martial Strike, their 3rd level ability replicates a 1st level spell....it looks great on paper, but in reality the smite powers aren't super useful. The first few levels are nice because of the BAB, spells and extra smite, but overall the class features are somewhat limited. I don't think this is a popular view, but this was my experience with a FoR.

For a real melee build I much prefer the Paladin/PT blend. Maybe throw in 2 levels of monk or rogue for evasion as well.

-AS-
El_Machinae
06-11-07, 09:18 AM I'd throw in two levels of Divine Oracle, I think. Because of the way PT's Smite works, you want to get a cleric with the Destruction domain if you can, in addition to Paladin levels (though it can't be done with Greyhawk). Monk or Rogue is good, though, if you want to get into PT earlier than 8th.

Pious Templar is a solid class, and that makes it rather fun. IIRC, the PT caster level is higher than the Paladin's, too, isn't it - because the Paladin only gets 1/2 his class in caster levels?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BigJMoney 06-03-07, 10:15 PM	Can anyone explain the decision why the Pious Templar's spell list doesn't stack with a Paladin's spell list? It makes no sense and makes playing a Pal/Piu very bad for using any divine magic, because the player's spell level will always be divided in half. It seems to me that the Templar is supposed to be a "Paladin in a box" for other classes that don't want to have to multiclass Pal and wait forever to get access to divine spells. Would it be totally against the spirit of the rules to add this line to the Templar's spell description: "If the Templar's previous class is Paladin, instead of gaining new spells, the character will count her Pious Templar's levels as Paladin levels for determining spells per day and caster level." =$= Big J Money =$=
Barloch 06-03-07, 11:51 PM	Thats exactly it, the templar is essentially the paladin in a box for non-lawful good dieties. Its a great fighter prc. It would really be up to your dm, but I can't see any real problem with it because their fluff is diffrent but they acomplish kind of similar tasks and stations in a temple.
Lotus Crane 06-04-07, 12:51 AM	Indeed, if you can reconcile the flavor issues that paladins are supposed to go outside, while Pious Templars are supposed to stay home, there's no real mechanical imbalance from allowing paladins to advance their original spellcasting with PT levels.
Darth Sephiroth 06-04-07, 01:30 AM	Indeed, if you can reconcile the flavor issues that paladins are supposed to go outside, while Pious Templars are supposed to stay home, there's no real mechanical imbalance from allowing paladins to advance their original spellcasting with PT levels. Don't remember the spell lists, but you could add the spells in the Pious Templar List to the Paladin List as well
StevenO 06-04-07, 02:07 PM	While the intent may be good I do see a potential problem with that. If you allow the Templar to add to a Paladin's spellcasting level for level (effectively changing the independant spell progression to a +1 casting class) then I should be able to do the exact same for a Cleric. To me the "fair" way to convert a seperate spellcasting progression into a +1 caster level progression is to do so advance casting at only even levels. Originally (and in some versions) the Bladesinger had its own spell progression inspite of having spells as a prereq but that changed to an even level advancement in the Complete Warrior. I'd allow the 1/2 advancement or seperate progression which makes the choice a little more difficult.
Darth Sephiroth 06-04-07, 04:17 PM	Perhaps full Caster level increase but half spell progression.
Ander Spectacular 06-08-07, 11:29 AM	Paladin spell progression sucks. The PTs spells scale faster than allowing them stack, so pretty much however you look at it, the PTs is better. Having it stack with the Paladins would provide no real benefit(as Paladin's caster level is low also). -AS-
Barloch 06-08-07, 01:09 PM	While the intent may be good I do see a potential problem with that. If you allow the Templar to add to a Paladin's spellcasting level for level (effectively changing the independant spell progression to a +1 casting class) then I should be able to do the exact same for a Cleric. To me the "fair" way to convert a seperate spellcasting progression into a +1 caster level progression is to do so advance casting at only even levels. Originally (and in some versions) the Bladesinger had its own spell progression inspite of having spells as a prereq but that changed to an even level advancement in the Complete Warrior. I'd allow the 1/2 advancement or seperate progression which makes the choice a little more difficult. Theres always the DM who gives you "the look," and then says "no." That seems to work quite well. I don't see a problem for giving a paladin, specifically a paladin, full casting progression with this class, a cleric however I do see a problem with.
Khatoblepas 06-08-07, 05:53 PM	+1 level of paladin spellcasting every level. That's all you need to make it balanced. :) Just like Stalker of Kharrash, or Lyric Thaumaturge, it can go up in a particular class.
The_Shaman 06-08-07, 05:56 PM	I guess, but even then a fighter 6/PT 10 will have better casting than paladin 6/ PT 10.
Jaxgaret 06-08-07, 06:02 PM	I guess, but even then a fighter 6/PT 10 will have better casting than paladin 6/ PT 10. :confused: Is it just me or does that make no sense?
Dyne 06-08-07, 06:52 PM	:confused: Is it just me or does that make no sense? It's just you. A 10th-level Pious Templar (keeping it's original spellcasting progression) casts spells than a caster level 16 Paladin (allowing PT levels to improve Paladin casting, instead of having a separate progression).
Iron Klaw Merc 06-08-07, 11:08 PM	You could always one the variant class feature Paladins that don't get spell casting, then just use the PT's spell casting when you enter the PrC.
The_Shaman 06-09-07, 08:07 AM	It is strange, but true. The iir 2-2-1-1 casting scheme mirrors that of lvl 17 paladins/rangers, so if you are a normal pally you are better off taking the PT in addition to your regular casting.
The_One_Who_Walks 06-09-07, 12:00 PM	Don't remember the spell lists, but you could add the spells in the Pious Templar List to the Paladin List as well The spell lists are the same. Good Templaers use the paladin list, evil ones get the blackguard list, and neutral ones get to choose, same as a neutral cleric choosing turn or rebuke undead.
Jaxgaret 06-09-07, 02:21 PM	It's just you. A 10th-level Pious Templar (keeping it's original spellcasting progression) casts spells than a caster level 16 Paladin (allowing PT levels to improve Paladin casting, instead of having a separate progression). Ah, I see, you're saying that a Fighter6/PT10 using the normal rules has better casting than a Paladin6/VariantPT10 using the "+1 Palading spellcasting per level" rule for the PT. But that's comparing apples to oranges. The rules work the same way for both. If you use the same system (either normal rules or the variant rules) for both the Fighter6/PT10 and the Pal6/PT10, the Pal will come out on top in the spellcasting category either way. I understand where you are coming from, in the spirit of this thread; it was just stated poorly. No offense. I agree with you, Shaman, that the Pious Templar's casting is better than the Pally's. Perhaps a decent way to give Paladins who go into Pious Templar an edge over other classes is to say that if a character who goes into PT has Paladin spellcasting, they add their CL from their Paladin levels to the CL for PT spellcasting.
The_Shaman 06-09-07, 02:32 PM	Ah, my bad. I must have meant that a Fighter/ PT 10 will be better than a lvl 16 paladin. Actually, I consider the templar one of the better paladin PrCs. For a combat-oriented paladin, P 5/ PT 10 / Divine Champion 5 (or 4, which allows for 1 more paladin level - useful with paladin variants that get something better than cure disease) can be a stable option with its weapon specialization, many feats, and okay casting.
Jaxgaret 06-09-07, 02:44 PM	Ah, my bad. I must have meant that a Fighter/ PT 10 will be better than a lvl 16 paladin. Actually, I consider the templar one of the better paladin PrCs. For a combat-oriented paladin, P 5/ PT 10 / Divine Champion 5 (or 4, which allows for 1 more paladin level - useful with paladin variants that get something better than cure disease) can be a stable option with its weapon specialization, many feats, and okay casting. I never really looked at the Pious Templar class before. Wow. It's pretty darn good. Is it just me or does it get a really nice array of benefits for not very much cost? The True Believer feat can actually be fairly useful if you get a good Relic.
The_Shaman 06-09-07, 02:52 PM	Well, I'm a bit of a Realms fan and so far the only relics I've seen for it were pretty shabby... But yes, a paladin / templar is quite solid. I don't have my books at the moment, iirc the only problem was that Templar smite had a stable +4 to attack instead of being cha-based. However, divine grace and mettle are imo quite the combo. There aren't that many fort partial or will partial spells in the PHB, but they tend to be nasty. The +2 to saves vs divine magic from the DC are also nice... or you could be a dwarf (or both). So it's a good PrC, solid for warriors of any sort, but nothing too incredible. A paladin who chooses it gets a slightly different smite, more feats and possibly weapon mastery (although the way it's written suggests the mastery benefits apply only to the chosen weapon) etc, but loses lay on hands (which can be very good, esp. against undead), the turn progression, celestial companion and a few other minor extras. I would also be glad if there could be a variant with ranger casting, representing templars of nature deities.
Jaxgaret 06-09-07, 04:46 PM	Well, I'm a bit of a Realms fan and so far the only relics I've seen for it were pretty shabby... So it's a good PrC, solid for warriors of any sort, but nothing too incredible. I haven't really taken a good look at the Relics, I just assumed (probably a bad idea considering that WotC created them) that there were some good ones on the list. I agree, it's no Fist of Raziel. :)
The_Shaman 06-09-07, 06:39 PM	Well, Fist of Raziel would imo be tolerable with pure paladin, nothing too insane ;) .
Ander Spectacular 06-11-07, 09:02 AM	Well, Fist of Raziel would imo be tolerable with pure paladin, nothing too insane ;) . Except with pure Paladin, you would still cast worse than any non-caster/PT mix. Fist of Raziel is a good class for Prestige Paladins and Clerics. Strangely, though, FoR is not that great because its class abilities interact strangely. The 1st level ability is quickly replaced by the 4th level level bonus feat of Sanctify Martial Strike, their 3rd level ability replicates a 1st level spell....it looks great on paper, but in reality the smite powers aren't super useful. The first few levels are nice because of the BAB, spells and extra smite, but overall the class features are somewhat limited. I don't think this is a popular view, but this was my experience with a FoR. For a real melee build I much prefer the Paladin/PT blend. Maybe throw in 2 levels of monk or rogue for evasion as well. -AS-
El_Machinae 06-11-07, 09:18 AM	I'd throw in two levels of Divine Oracle, I think. Because of the way PT's Smite works, you want to get a cleric with the Destruction domain if you can, in addition to Paladin levels (though it can't be done with Greyhawk). Monk or Rogue is good, though, if you want to get into PT earlier than 8th. Pious Templar is a solid class, and that makes it rather fun. IIRC, the PT caster level is higher than the Paladin's, too, isn't it - because the Paladin only gets 1/2 his class in caster levels?