Post/Author/DateTime	Post
claypigeons 05-25-07, 06:43 PM	Alright, my DM isn't one for huge sweeping changes, so OneWinged4ngel's rebalanced paladin is a no-go. So, would "purist" (Don't really get it, but whatever..) DM's allow the paladin the ability to use their abilites more often? This means, essentially, that Smite would be X/encounter and Remove Disease would be X/day. Also, would giving them 4skill points per level combined with the above be okay? They have a decent skill list, but almost no ability to make use of it if they still want to have some combat ability.
KillerGM 05-25-07, 07:23 PM	I actually don't think the Paladin needs any boosting. So, no I wouldn't. I think it's fine as-is. Here's a way to work with more skills: Put more points in Intelligence and be Human. ;) I don't think I'm a "purist", I just don't think it needs any change. I'd allow the changes if you were to, say, give something else up.
Kursk 05-25-07, 07:26 PM	I don't see a need for changes to the class as it is not the weakest core class out there.
KJW 05-25-07, 07:47 PM	Yeah, the paladin is fine as it is, but I second the play a human and have a decent intelligence if you want skill points.
claypigeons 05-25-07, 09:14 PM	That's just it though... The answer can't just be "play a human". As it stands, a Paladin uses a decent strength score, any sane paladin needs a decent con score, a decent wisdom score to cast spells, and a decent cha score to use their two main class abilities (smite and divine grace). That doesn't leave room for a decent Int in many games, mine included. To be honest, smite sucks anway. You just don't have enough uses. I guess I'll just have to play the archetype in a different way. I don't see the point in playing a weak (yes, it's weak. It may not be the weakest in the PHB, but it IS weak...) class just for the "knight in shining armour" concept... Thank you for the input, though. It is appreciated.
KJW 05-25-07, 09:47 PM	You could argue for a feat that gives extra smites, I'm not sure off-hand, but there might be one already somewhere out there. Anyway, if you want combat power you should go with a fighter or a ranger with two-weapon fighting. Combat prowess is not why you should play a paladin. Look to the paladin's abilities, a bonus to saves, aura of courage, immunity to disease, minor spell casting, lay on hands, turn undead, detect evil, and special mount and others. This is a character designed to fight, heal, and support a party, it is the natural class of a party leader (especially with the detect evil ability to find hidden enemies to help screen employers and hooks and so forth, seriously detect evil is incredibly useful) and is also awesome versus undead when properly designed for the task. Also as long as you DM is not anti-paladin, you will probably have some order or faith for support, respect from the people, and plenty of opportunities to smite evil. Paladins are fun, still if you are looking for simple combat power, you are right a fighter can still give you a 'knight in shining armor' feel and you will likely inflict more damage.
KillerGM 05-25-07, 09:49 PM	Sorry, I just don't agree that it's weak. And playing a human is a viable way to boost skill points, if you're interested in playing with more skills, as is raising Int. If someone wanted to take more skills as a Cleric or a Fighter, I wouldn't suggest upping the skill points on a Fighter or Cleric, I'd suggest playing a human or putting more points in Int. It's your concept of having more skills that is driving the change, *not* the class's need for it. You just think it's weak as written. I disagree, but I'd like to explain why I do. You need, at most, a 14 Wis, which, by the time you can cast 4th level spells (14th level), should be covered by magic, if need be. The Cha bonus to saves and smiting are nice, but by no means requires a crazy Cha bonus to make it worth it. I don't know what your definition of "decent" is, and that can vary widely. If I wanted to have more skills on my Paladin, I'd play her as human. Or give her more Int. Or both. This is probably how I'd make one up (using the 25 point elite array): Str 13 Dex 8 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 10 Cha 15 Just using 25 Point Buy, I'd probably do something like this: Str 13 Dex 8 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 12 Cha 14 Now, as a human, I'll have 4 skills maxed out, which would probably be Diplomacy, Ride, Know (religion) (at least to 5 ranks), and Sense Motive. There are only 6 other skills I don't have (and 2 are Craft and Profession, neither of which I use very often). Concentration isn't a huge thing for me, as I doubt I'll be casting in combat that often (most Paladin spells are good for the first-round buff or healing). Know (nobility) may be where I put ranks after I get Know (religion) to 5 ranks. I can alternate between the two, as needed for the campaign. Handle Animal isn't of great use, as I won't need to train my mount, and Heal is cute at low levels for stabilization, but I'd just as soon lay on hands. I could raise Str, Wis, or Cha at 4th/8th/etc. If I wasn't human, I'd have one less skill (probably Sense Motive until I was comfortable with Know (religion) ranks), and my ability scores would be different, obviously. What did you want to accomplish with the Paladin?
claypigeons 05-25-07, 10:29 PM	What did you want to accomplish with the Paladin? In general? Just vanilla holy warrior stuff. Crusade for good (without being a detect-and-smite-a-tard), help the less fortunate, blah blah... But I can do all that as a cleric. Or even an extremely religious fighter. The paladin doesn't really do anything outside of smiting. They end up stretching themselves too thinly if they want to make the most of the class. If you want to be a dipolmat, play a bard. If you want to be a melee machine, play a fighter (or Warblade). If you want good divine spellcasting, play a cleric and get both spells AND melee ability. You could argue for a feat that gives extra smites, I'm not sure off-hand, but there might be one already somewhere out there. There is such a feat... In Complete Warrior, pg.94. Look to the paladin's abilities, a bonus to saves, aura of courage, immunity to disease, minor spell casting, lay on hands, turn undead, detect evil, and special mount and others. This is a character designed to fight, heal, and support a party, it is the natural class of a party leader (especially with the detect evil ability to find hidden enemies to help screen employers and hooks and so forth, seriously detect evil is incredibly useful) and is also awesome versus undead when properly designed for the task. It's not really a support class though. It gets to remove diseases a couple times per WEEK. And Lay on Hands is, for the most part, good for stabilizing people, unless you've dumped a lot of points into Charisma. In such a case, you will almost certainly be a poor combatant (unless you had really good rolls, which is not the case with a lot of games). The personal bonuses to saves don't help the party either. And for the record, Turn Undead is almost a joke, especially a paladin's turning. A paladin's turning attempts are almost certainly going to fuel divine feats. Also as long as you DM is not anti-paladin, you will probably have some order or faith for support, respect from the people, and plenty of opportunities to smite evil. Paladins are fun, still if you are looking for simple combat power, you are right a fighter can still give you a 'knight in shining armor' feel and you will likely inflict more damage. I'm not going for combat damage. If I wanted that, I could toss together something completely unrelated to a paladin. What I'm trying to do is either play a paladin to have that concept (while not sacrificing too much for a ~concept~... which is stupid. Yeah, whatever... We can keep that debate out of here, I'm sure there are dozens of active threads debating it). The paladin, while being an archetype I really like, doesn't really do much. A few times per day it can deal a bunch of damage, a few times per week it can cure a disease, and he can call a mount to his aid. Clerics can do all that, AND maintain the "divine strength from the heavens in the form of a holy warrior" concept... Bah... I guess I'll leave the debate to someone more eloquent. I maintain that the paladin is a weak class, both mechanically and fluff-wise. They can either be crippled completely or truly shine on the whim of your DM.
Comus 05-25-07, 10:50 PM	If you're concerned about the power level, but want some backing for the 'holy warrior' bit, play a Crusader. In my opinion, it fixes everything I thought was bad about the Paladin, though it does replace the 'mounted combat' part with 'being so darn tough that it's silly'.
claypigeons 05-26-07, 02:19 AM	If you're concerned about the power level, but want some backing for the 'holy warrior' bit, play a Crusader. In my opinion, it fixes everything I thought was bad about the Paladin, though it does replace the 'mounted combat' part with 'being so darn tough that it's silly'. That's a very good idea. I need even more badly to get my DM to realise that ToB isn't overpowered, and there is hardly any more work in implementing initiator classes for the DM... (in all honesty, how many manuevers are you really going to get through in a melee based battle against a party of PCs...)
guru7892 05-26-07, 06:34 AM	to be perfectly honest I think of palidens as more of a gateway class to a presteige class based on paliden ideals. what I don't understand is why they have twenty levels four it. ten should be enough. I feel the same way about the fighter, its a class to multiclass with. the whole 20 levels thing just doesn't fit with other classes that get more spells or abilities as they move on.
the_Luggage 05-26-07, 11:12 AM	Hmmm. I think they are a little underpowered, but not massively so. Have a look at some of the other paladin spells. Stuff like find the gap is really quite good.
Warduke 05-26-07, 08:13 PM	All this talk about Pallys needing love is crazy. What the pally lacks in offensive output (not that he is weak in this regard, he just isnt a Barb) he makes up for in survivability. Way better saves than either of the other melee classes, immune to disease and fear (Immunity to fear is huge IMHO) can smite when he needs to, and can heal himself. Add that in with great leadership abilites and a magic mount. Please explain how the Pally is "gimped".
Warduke 05-26-07, 10:21 PM	Clerics can do all that, AND maintain the "divine strength from the heavens in the form of a holy warrior" concept... Clerics as a melee class have one special weakness. They need time. Sometimes yes they can be a powerhouse. Many encounters however don't give them enough time to power up. Most Clerics never memorize their spells properly anyway. Anything cast 8 hours before your prayer time is wasted for the next day. A tough rule that most players conviniently forget. Also even though Clerics and Pallys get the same amount of feats per level, the Cleric is more apt to use his for casting (or turning), and not enhancing his melee. The Pally typically can use more feats towards combat prowess. And Lay on Hands is, for the most part, good for stabilizing people, unless you've dumped a lot of points into Charisma. In such a case, you will almost certainly be a poor combatant (unless you had really good rolls, which is not the case with a lot of games). Completley disagree. The Cloak of Charisma was basicaly made for the Paladin. Biggest issues with cloaks for many people is not wearing a cloak of resistance. Paladin gets saves from a CoC and increases his turning and Lay on Hands. Lay on Hands by the way is much more usefull than you may think. No provoking, No spell failure chance, no chance of bad die rolls spoiling the amount of healing recieved.
claypigeons 05-26-07, 11:35 PM	Also even though Clerics and Pallys get the same amount of feats per level, the Cleric is more apt to use his for casting (or turning), and not enhancing his melee. The Pally typically can use more feats towards combat prowess. Have you seen the cleric spell list? Improving casting and/or turning IS improving melee. The only thing a cleric has to realistically contend with is dispelling. The "time" it takes to cast stuff is one, maybe 2 rounds. And that's only if you don't go with the persist spell route. Completley disagree. The Cloak of Charisma was basicaly made for the Paladin. Biggest issues with cloaks for many people is not wearing a cloak of resistance. Paladin gets saves from a CoC and increases his turning and Lay on Hands. And again, like I stated before... the paladin boosts a non-optimal attribute to boost his class abilities... or sucks at them. Lay on Hands by the way is much more usefull than you may think. No provoking, No spell failure chance, no chance of bad die rolls spoiling the amount of healing recieved. It's not better than I thought... I took that into account. I still stand by the fact that a paladin is weakened by having to boost a completely worthless attribute to get anything out of the majority of his class abilities. Add that in with great leadership abilites and a magic mount. Please explain how the Pally is "gimped". I never once used the word "gimped". I said it's weak. Depending on how you apply your points, it's either a weak combatant with a few decent abilities that run off cha. Or it's a good combatant that can make almost no use of his class abilities without much magical help. And, for the record, the mount is only good if you have a chance to actually use it in combat. It's hit or miss. Some campaigns are complete dungeon crawls, while others take place in wide oepn plains.
calronmoonflower 05-27-07, 12:50 AM	Completley disagree. The Cloak of Charisma was basicaly made for the Paladin. Biggest issues with cloaks for many people is not wearing a cloak of resistance. Paladin gets saves from a CoC and increases his turning and Lay on Hands. Instead of a Cloak of Resistance try a Vest of Resistance. I forgot which book it is in, but it does exist. Also note if you take the Cloak of Charisma's description as written you don't need to don it to get the benefit. From the SRD Cloak of Charisma: This lightweight and fashionable cloak has a highly decorative silver trim. When in a character’s possession, it adds a +2, +4, or +6 enhancement bonus to her Charisma score. Moderate transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Wondrous Item, eagle’s splendor; Price 4,000 gp (+2), 16,000 gp (+4), 36,000 gp (+6); Weight 2 lb.
Warduke 05-27-07, 01:33 AM	And, for the record, the mount is only good if you have a chance to actually use it in combat. It's hit or miss. Some campaigns are complete dungeon crawls, while others take place in wide oepn plains. Well I agree there. Personally I would never play in a dungeon crawl only campaign. Cloak of Charisma: This lightweight and fashionable cloak has a highly decorative silver trim. When in a character’s possession, it adds a +2, +4, or +6 enhancement bonus to her Charisma score. Moderate transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Wondrous Item, eagle’s splendor; Price 4,000 gp (+2), 16,000 gp (+4), 36,000 gp (+6); Weight 2 lb. From the SRD Of course, a character may carry or possess as many items of the same type as he wishes. However, additional items beyond those listed above have no effect. Some items can be worn or carried without taking up space on a character’s body. The description of an item indicates when an item has this property.
pukunui 05-27-07, 05:52 AM	Anyone who thinks the current edition's paladin is gimped should go back and play a 2nd edition paladin ... Human only. Ability prerequisites: STR 12, CON 9, WIS 13, CHA 17 Cannot have more than 10 magic items (1 suit of armor, 1 shield, 4 weapons, and 4 other items) Cannot keep excess wealth and cannot give it to other characters - must give it to the paladin's church Must tithe 10% of income to church - tithe is immediate I swear the Complete Paladin's Handbook had something about suffering dire consequences if the paladin didn't politely greet every singly person s/he passed in the street ... :rolleyes: Just thought I'd throw that in there. I personally really like the paladin class, but I agree with the sentiment that it should really only be 10 levels. The last 10 levels haven't got a lot to them. The only change I've made to paladins in my campaign is to make them spontaneous casters using the hexblade/spellthief spells known table - but that wasn't for balance reasons. I was just trying to eliminate prepared casting from my game. I do think that only allowing the paladin to remove disease on a weekly basis rather than a daily basis is a bit weird ... but unless you're going up against hordes of disease-ridden undead, how often is your paladin going to need to remove diseases anyway?
the_Luggage 05-27-07, 11:44 AM	There is an argument to be made that the final levels of paladin aren't really that empty because of the spells. However, when compared to Ranger it does start to look pretty barren. Remove Disease is and odd ability for Paladins to have really...
Neutronium_Dragon 05-27-07, 12:10 PM	I don't think they need the extra skill points, but I do like the idea of making Smite a per-encounter ability and Remove Disease a per-day one. As it stands, they're far too rarified to be much use.