now let's see i'm a new player and we're going in a large epic compaign with a hardcore DM that's strict on lore issues and demands us to think seriously before picking aligment/class/race so any help to avoid mistakes is appreciated.(3rd edition)
the facts:
1)i want a mostly mellee character(a few spells at tough times would be a nice addition to swordplay)
2)my character will be of either lawful good or neutral good aligment i can't really decide,i'd follow the laws/rules unless they're completely insane or unethical(but if so no inner conflict will be involved,after all such laws would be the work of evil or madmen)the rest would be a good character with the desire to help others but: i can't guarantee i'd let a genocidal villain that shows no remorse live even if he's beaten,also while always eager to help even risk i cannot guarantee it will be a character with zero pride,but generally will be unconcerned about material rewards (no interest in looting,won't accept rewards from the poor but he will do from those who wouldn't miss it anyway to put them to good use though)
3) my character will be open minded and definately not a zealot,he's going to value good deeds over faith, and while he will attempt to be an example to others he will not wish to convert anyone,and he'd rather live by the example of the good deities rather than pray all day long.
4)in a similar fashion while he will be strongly opposed dishonorable acts he will not be the typical noble knight chatting all day long about honour and valour,he will be simple and won't care so much about titles and ranks as for the actual value of the person beneath them.(he will assume they earned the rank for good reason though unless proved otherwise)
5)he will not have the typical endless rant of a 'goodie two-shoes' no talk about heroism,valour,charitty,honour,faith,devotion,good and other abstracts. just deeds and a simple lifestyle that focuses on results that involve the most good for everyone.
6)in extreme situations he may due a little evil to do alot more good
7) he will be interested in long term romance with a single partner
8) he will tend to cover his own needs from time to time(but with zero interest in luxuries) as long as it does not conflict with the good of anyone
else.
9) he will never seek violence but will asnwer if he or anyone else is threatened with violence,he will also have considerable diplomatic ability(one of the reasons i'd rather not play a lawfull good fighter)
10) he will not be stone cold,he will have emotions and desires but will not let them get the best of him
thx in advance,any help is appreciated
PS: can monks have a romance? just curious...
2. If you're playing 3e, your Paladin has to be Lawful Good, and if he does anything that isn't Lawful Good, by your DM's subjective measurements, he loses all of his divine abilities. This is a very good reason to not play one.
3. Very good.
4. Potential 'non-lawful' issue, depending on your DM's perspective.
5. That's fine.
6. You're screwed. The Paladin code forbids this. Kiss your powers goodbye.
7. That's fine.
8. That's fine.
9. That's fine.
10. That's fine.
Any class can 'have a romance'.
Does that sound cynical? Well, you did say you had a hardcore DM.
Sorry, this may sound edition-warlike, but I'm just trying to save the OP some grief. OP, play a spellcaster, you'll be happier that you did. Save your Paladin ideas for 4e where a Paladin can be any alignment he wants and won't lose his powers if he accidentally steps out of line. Then you can explore all the roleplaying possiblities of Lawful Good without fear of making an irreversible mistake because the DM woke up on the wrong side of the bed that day.
Salla went into some pretty good detail about why Paladins in 3e can be a lot of un-fun.
In the meantime, if you decide to still play a Paladin, look around for a copy of the Complete Paladin's Handbook for D&D 2e. I still think it was one of the best treatments the Paladin class ever got for Dungeons and Dragons in any edition. So much good stuff there on code of conduct, historical Paladins, every aspect of the class. And most of it still applies to other D&D editions. Highly recommended.
The cleric is a tier 1 class, the paladin is tier 5. Both fit the 'holy warrior, melee beatstick with spellcasting' theme you want. Why would you pick the weaker one?
4th ed paladin is a lot of fun with so much more flexibility then 3rd
DO NOT PLAY PALADIN IN 3rd ed unless you want to cry. ( I hear its better in pathfinder now though)
3rd just has to many problems that its more headache then good sadly which is why I love the 4th ed paladin so much. Gray guard anyone? 
Play a Paladin!
Yes, Cleric might be better but it's a RPG, you don't have to be the best class, best race, THE best combo! You must play what you wanna RP!
Play a Paladin!Yes, Cleric might be better but it's a RPG, you don't have to be the best class, best race, THE best combo! You must play what you wanna RP!
He wants to play a melee warrior who casts spells and is devoted to good and justice. If a paladin and cleric both can perform that job, why would you pick the one that does it worse?
Also, while the 3E cleric was by default better, you can make a decent enough paladin if you use some of the variant rules and have a flexible DM. I made a fun 3.5 one that I played for 20 levels (I think it was a Paladin6/Psychic Warrior3/kensai10), but my DM did things like let me use the alternate weapon training rules so I could start out with a spiked chain and was more generous with my starting stats than normal.
2)Cavalier is a Lawful Neutral version of a Paladin from what I hear. Not sure if it's in 3rd.
3) My old DM Would have a problem with this, he forced the Paladin in our group to use Detect Evil every five seconds. If the paladin did and saw evil they were forced to kill it. They had no self control over their character.
4)Same as #3.
5)Same as #4
6)My DM would do an alignment shift because of this.
7)I've never seen a DM force Divine priests or paladins to be celibate.
Everything else is pretty much perfectly alright.
PS: Yes they can. I would stay away from Monks in 3rd. Back when I played 3rd the DM said that Monks only work out in the lower levels and they don't get good enchanted weapons or items. Then again this is the same DM who had my fist break everytime I hit something.
Based on my experience with 3.5e, biased because I did not agree with my DM's style. This might not be your DM:
2)Cavalier is a Lawful Neutral version of a Paladin from what I hear. Not sure if it's in 3rd.
It's not. The closest there was were LE, CG, and CE variants, which all suffered from the same general suckiness as the LG version regarding behavior.
The closest there was were LE, CG, and CE variants, which all suffered from the same general suckiness as the LG version regarding behavior.
It still stuns me, even after so many years, that anyone at any point could decide it was a good idea to have something in the game that forced you to act chaotic evil at all times or lose your class powers.
The closest there was were LE, CG, and CE variants, which all suffered from the same general suckiness as the LG version regarding behavior.
It still stuns me, even after so many years, that anyone at any point could decide it was a good idea to have something in the game that forced you to act chaotic evil at all times or lose your class powers.
I agree. It was stupid in 1e. It was archaic in 2e. In 3e it was a positive relic, something that deserved to be put in a museum display and gaped at in silent horror. "How could we have EVER thought that was a good idea?"
Play a Paladin!
Yes, Cleric might be better but it's a RPG, you don't have to be the best class, best race, THE best combo! You must play what you wanna RP!
He wants to roleplay a holy warrior that makes decisions for himself, and occasionally acts in the service of the greater good rather than automatically, thoughtlessly taking whatever individual action has the inherent moral absolute most coincident with the two little letters scribbled at the top of his character sheet. That means he's best served playing a character of the cleric character class.
Playing a paladin in 3e isn't roleplaying; it's gambling your character's ability to serve his order on your ability to win a game of Simon Says with your ears plugged up. It's mandatory metagaming.
THe paladin in the 3 & 3.5 game I was in kicked backside! When outdoors he was mounted, with a lance, and had massive damage multipliers that made him the equal to any spell caster. When not mounted, he was still pretty effective.
Certainly he was far more effective than my druid.
And as for other things... Being a paladin isn't a license to run around killing indescriminantly. That is called "Murder". There was a great article on paladins in an old dragon magazine. Suppose there's an evil shepherd. For some reason, the paladin does detect evil. The paladin will choose not to deal with that shepherd, but rather his neighbor. The paladin, while in the tavern, may point out that the neighbor's sheep seem much better tended and cared for. The paladin might even talk to the evil shepherd and point out that with propper care and attention, his sheep will fetch a better price at market--trying to covertly convert the shepherd's attitude by appealing to his greed to get him to change his ways. Likewise, if the paladin comes across an evil prince: if he kills him, the king can lawfully order the paladin arrested and sent to prison or even executed for treason or crimes against the crown. "It's evil: I kill it," is not the only option with paladins, and not even a very desireable way to play.
Funny.
THe paladin in the 3 & 3.5 game I was in kicked backside! When outdoors he was mounted, with a lance, and had massive damage multipliers that made him the equal to any spell caster. When not mounted, he was still pretty effective.
Certainly he was far more effective than my druid.
Then you were really playing your druid extremely poorly.
Funny.
THe paladin in the 3 & 3.5 game I was in kicked backside! When outdoors he was mounted, with a lance, and had massive damage multipliers that made him the equal to any spell caster. When not mounted, he was still pretty effective.
Certainly he was far more effective than my druid.
Then you were really playing your druid extremely poorly.
Thank you for your kind comments.
Yes, I was learning to play a druid from scratch.
On the other hand, the Paladin is NOT a "useless" or "under-powered". Sounds like others were playing paladins as well as I played a druid.
On the other hand, the Paladin is NOT a "useless" or "under-powered". Sounds like others were playing paladins as well as I played a druid.
Unfortunately if you are playing in an even moderately optimized game the druid left the paladin far behind the higher you leveled. At low levels it wasn't that bad IME, but the druid got an animal companion that could be about as effective as the paladin in combat, could shape change, and got full spell progression.
You could make a decent enough PC powerwise that started out as a paladin if you had a generous DM and went very specific routes (spike chain tripping with an oversized PC worked for me for instance). But druid was one of the most powerful PC options in 3.5 mainly because any high level PC from a class that got full spell progession was better than any of non-full progession spell casting class because spell casting was broken good. And the druid could do powerful stuff on top of that.
But druid was one of the most powerful PC options in 3.5 mainly because any high level PC from a class that got full spell progession was better than any of non-full progession spell casting class because spell casting was broken good. And the druid could do powerful stuff on top of that.
"I'm a druid! I have class features that are more powerful than your entire class!"
I was working with lvl 8 or 9.
It may have been highly specialized, but that paladin, on his mount, owned the battle field. Even with my companion animal, I was lucky to get a hit of any kind in.
When not on his mount, he still was an extremely powerful character that broke encounters.
I may have played the druid poorly, but a properly played paladin is not something to be scorned or dismissed.
at higher levels. Yeah, that's nice.
I was working with lvl 8 or 9.
It may have been highly specialized, but that paladin, on his mount, owned the battle field. Even with my companion animal, I was lucky to get a hit of any kind in.
When not on his mount, he still was an extremely powerful character that broke encounters.
I may have played the druid poorly, but a properly played paladin is not something to be scorned or dismissed.
The druid outclasses the Paladin at level 1, and it just gets worse from there ... I honestly have no idea how in the world you managed to pull that off.
3.5 paladin outclassed all the melee characters and several of the casters in the party.
4.0 (fey)warlocks are urine-poor controllers and under-powered strikers compared to other PH1 classes (but still fun characters). (I still love the fact one person on the char-opp board told me that "slow" and "immobilize" are high-level control effects.)
Heroes of Shadow is poorly written and needs severe rework
Seasonal courts of the feywild are poorly explained.
Essentials was a mistake.
See, all counter to the widely held beliefs and experiences.
It isn't that I'm contrary or argumentative by nature--just that my experience has been totally opposite.
4.0 (fey)warlocks are urine-poor controllers and under-powered strikers compared to other PH1 classes (but still fun characters). (I still love the fact one person on the char-opp board told me that "slow" and "immobilize" are high-level control effects.)
It's not a controller, so that's why they're a lot worse than Wizards and Invokers.
They're good strikers when you build them correctly. It's finding out how to build them correctly that's the trick.
Immobilize and slow are only bad when enemies can teleport and/or have strong ranged attacks. Stunned, dominated and blinded are better, but much rarer unless you play Epic.
Essentials was a mistake.
No, it just wasn't for you. Essentials is aimed at new/casual players who drown in the number of decisions they have to make when creating and playing PHB characters. Having a character that functions out of the box and just makes the same two or three attacks every turn is much easier to play, not to mention it doesn't drag out combat.
*looks around*
Hm, what are all these trees doing here?
Not to derail this topic entirely to into the forest, but...Essentials was a mistake.
No, it just wasn't for you. Essentials is aimed at new/casual players who drown in the number of decisions they have to make when creating and playing PHB characters. Having a character that functions out of the box and just makes the same two or three attacks every turn is much easier to play, not to mention it doesn't drag out combat.
*looks around*
Hm, what are all these trees doing here?
And we got those nice Master Token Sets.
Back on topic: I played one session of 3.5 years ago with some friends. We didn't fully understand the rules but we defineitely knew how to play. The reason we didn't continue is becuase everyone felt that it wasn't a good system, the balance was ridiculous. . We had a druid and a wizard in the party, along with 5 other PCs, including a paladin. The paladin thought "Hey, I'm a fighter-y type, I'll go first into that scary-looking cave!" He got killed by the cursed wolves in wait before the rest of the party could get to him. Once everyone got inside, we found a piece of parchment that led all of the party except the druid and the wizard on a wild-goose chase. (The rationale was that if anything came out of the next room's opening, they could blast it and the druid had the animal companion. Long story short, the wizard and the druid decided to proceed, defeated the entire dungeons, including the 5ish cursed wolves , two of which killed the paladin, and killed a sorcerer designed to challnge the whole party and possibly kill someone.
The only one I'd disagree with you on was the paladin. The only explanation I can think of for why your druid sucked was you did something like use a hawk that avoids combat and try to do healing/blasting spells?
Druids are relatively solid up until level 6, but from then on are just stupid powerful. At level 8 or 9 a straight classed paladin should be a joke compared to you with minimal effort.
Well, I guess this is yet another example of my experience being directly contrary to the opinions held and experiences of other posters on this board.
Peta the Druid did not live long.
PH1: warlock is a striker with some control. The main reason people have sited to me for Warlocks not being as powerful as other strikers is that they have more control powers or effects. I disagree.
But let's not derail this into another warlocks argument.
Actually, I went with the Giant Dire Bat as a companion and mount, and tried both melee and ranged combat.
Why didn't you use your two most powerful features? Spells and wildshape? Buff yourself and companion. Turn into a bear. Then you and your bear friend maul the enemy. Both your being a bear and your spells should last most of a day at level 8.
Swap bears for dinosaurs or wolves if you want.
Actually, I went with the Giant Dire Bat as a companion and mount, and tried both melee and ranged combat.Why didn't you use your two most powerful features? Spells and wildshape? Buff yourself and companion. Turn into a bear. Then you and your bear friend maul the enemy. Both your being a bear and your spells should last most of a day at level 8.
Swap bears for dinosaurs or wolves if you want.
So, yeah, the answer is 'he didn't play his druid very well'.
Actually, I went with the Giant Dire Bat as a companion and mount, and tried both melee and ranged combat.Why didn't you use your two most powerful features? Spells and wildshape? Buff yourself and companion. Turn into a bear. Then you and your bear friend maul the enemy. Both your being a bear and your spells should last most of a day at level 8.
Swap bears for dinosaurs or wolves if you want.
Or a Hydra if you really want to make the DM cry.
Actually, I went with the Giant Dire Bat as a companion and mount, and tried both melee and ranged combat.Why didn't you use your two most powerful features? Spells and wildshape? Buff yourself and companion. Turn into a bear. Then you and your bear friend maul the enemy. Both your being a bear and your spells should last most of a day at level 8.
Swap bears for dinosaurs or wolves if you want.
Or a Hydra if you really want to make the DM cry.
Pffft, hydras! How about a tarasque? :D
Actually, I went with the Giant Dire Bat as a companion and mount, and tried both melee and ranged combat.Why didn't you use your two most powerful features? Spells and wildshape? Buff yourself and companion. Turn into a bear. Then you and your bear friend maul the enemy. Both your being a bear and your spells should last most of a day at level 8.
Swap bears for dinosaurs or wolves if you want.
You are asuming that I didn't.
Trivia question: given adjacent starting points, who gets into combat first: The druid in bear form, or the paladin charging on his mount?
hint: even charging, I couldn't get into combat until round 2 or 3. All the enemies that were closer were trampled down by an armored figure on horseback. Every time. Even when I won initiative.
Actually, I went with the Giant Dire Bat as a companion and mount, and tried both melee and ranged combat.Why didn't you use your two most powerful features? Spells and wildshape? Buff yourself and companion. Turn into a bear. Then you and your bear friend maul the enemy. Both your being a bear and your spells should last most of a day at level 8.
Swap bears for dinosaurs or wolves if you want.
Or a Hydra if you really want to make the DM cry.
Pffft, hydras! How about a tarasque? :D
Can you do that? I assumed that'd be too ridiculous.
Actually, I went with the Giant Dire Bat as a companion and mount, and tried both melee and ranged combat.Why didn't you use your two most powerful features? Spells and wildshape? Buff yourself and companion. Turn into a bear. Then you and your bear friend maul the enemy. Both your being a bear and your spells should last most of a day at level 8.
Swap bears for dinosaurs or wolves if you want.
You are asuming that I didn't.
Trivia question: given adjacent starting points, who gets into combat first: The druid in bear form, or the paladin charging on his mount?
hint: even charging, I couldn't get into combat until round 2 or 3. All the enemies that were closer were trampled down by an armored figure on horseback. Every time. Even when I won initiative.
The druid. By the time the paladin get access to his special mount, the druid can wild shape into 5hd creatures and cast up to 3rd level spells. The druid can stand in the same spot and hurl fireballs up to 120ft with Produce Flame, and do so multiple times per casting. Likewise, the druid can cast Call Lightning can call down up to 5 bolts of lightning during the encounter at a range of 150ft. Or lay down battlefield control with Sleet Storm or Entangle at a range of 600ft.
By wilding shaping, the druid can easily meet or exceed the mounted paladin in speed. Wildshaping changes your dex, and most animals have as good or better dexterity than what your bread-n-butter low-level paladin would have. Transforming into a warhorse would grant equal speed and a decent full-round attack routine. And the druid could even bring along another party member of their back, which means that two combatants make it to the frontlines for the paladin's one.
Wolves and cheetahs can also match the warhorse in speed and potentially make free trip attempts. And a deinonychus has a better base speed than all of them and can pounce to make four attack to the paladin's one attack a charge and two on a full attack.
And that's just using the SRD.
And then, when you're not on a nigh-featureless plane, the druid still has far more tricks at their disposal. The paladin, not so much.
Trivia question: given adjacent starting points, who gets into combat first: The druid in bear form, or the paladin charging on his mount?
Unless you're implying that the two characters always start adjacent, the enemies are always spotted at a distance and your paladin one-rounds everything without a flight speed, the answer isn't relevant. It doesn't matter how fast that horse gallops; it's still only carrying a paladin.
. . . you know, as long as you manage not to do anything evil on the way there.
You are asuming that I didn't.
No I didn't. You said you didn't. You said you were mounted. You can't be wildshaped while mounted. You didn't say you buffed, so I took that to mean you did not buff.
Also, if mounted on your Bat, its move speed is the same as a heavy warhorse, assuming the warhorse is wearing barding. So you get there the same time.
Why are all your combats starting 300ft away?
If you are mounted on a flying creature you win 99% of the fights until mid to late levels. Fly around and drop rocks on people, use a bow, or to be actually effective use spells. Most things can't deal with you if you are flying.
I can never remember, is this 'moving goalposts', 'cool story bro', or 'you're making stuff up'?
It's a mixture of all three, I think.
Well, As I've said: My experience was totally contrary to the seemingly accepted standard.
And people explained how you were doing it wrong.
I think this is the "U Mad Bro?" bit.
Well, As I've said: My experience was totally contrary to the seemingly accepted standard.
And people explained how you were doing it wrong.
I think this is the "U Mad Bro?" bit.
Which is exactly my view on how others have told me they played paladins.
Well, As I've said: My experience was totally contrary to the seemingly accepted standard.
And people explained how you were doing it wrong.
I think this is the "U Mad Bro?" bit.
Which is exactly my view on how others have told me they played paladins.
People have broken down the power gap, there's no need to stay around here and make vague allusions to the paladin being better then the druid, when it is CLEARLY not.
So sorry to have been a bother by expressing a conflicting opinion.
Sorry, I don't remember the exact details of a game that I played 7 years ago. If I could remember exactly what my character did vs what the other player did, I could be happy to provide exhaustive documentation. Such as it was, all the notes from that game are long gone. As it is, I don't even have the 3.0/3.5 books anymore.
So sorry to have been a bother by expressing a conflicting opinion.
hmm, well you remembered the details a pages back. He outpaced you with a mount. Impossible since you can wildshape. Etc. You even admitted you played the druid wrong.
Am I missing something here?
So sorry to have been a bother by expressing a conflicting opinion.
If you express a conflicting opinion, be prepared to discuss it. You were proven wrong by factual evidence to counter what you said. Then, you pop back and tell us that WE were doing something wrong playing the paladin.
Then, you pop back and tell us that WE were doing something wrong playing the paladin.
If a Paladin was outclassing a Druid, the Druid was playing poorly.
End of story.
Then, you pop back and tell us that WE were doing something wrong playing the paladin.
If a Paladin was outclassing a Druid, the Druid was playing poorly.
End of story.
Exactly.