Laughed at for his beliefs. Ridiculed for his inability to accurately swing a weapon. Generally hated on by the others for no real reason at all.
My advice, just let him re-build his character as a cleric.
orget healing, he'll be up in the front lines kicking more ass than Bruce Lee in a donkey kennel.
My advice, just let him re-build his character as a cleric.
Seconded. Just retcon his existing character. Handwave that he was always a cleric and be done with it.
Forget healing, he'll be up in the front lines kicking more ass than Bruce Lee in a donkey kennel.
My advice, just let him re-build his character as a cleric.
Seconded. Just retcon his existing character. Handwave that he was always a cleric and be done with it.
Thirded. Clerics can do some good melee damage. When they get Righteous Might they can do more than any purely melee class. Their spells can also do massive amounts of damage.
Fourthed. On the bright side, at least he didn't try to make a truenamer.
Now that's just uncal... Oh who am I kidding? It's totally called for...
But yes, rebuild as a Cleric. Domains, Spells out the box, and you're not too bad in melee either. Makes for a nice balance if godworshipping is your thing, and opens up even more options along the way.
Forget healing, he'll be up in the front lines kicking more ass than Bruce Lee in a donkey kennel.
My advice, just let him re-build his character as a cleric.
Seconded. Just retcon his existing character. Handwave that he was always a cleric and be done with it.
Thirded. Clerics can do some good melee damage. When they get Righteous Might they can do more than any purely melee class. Their spells can also do massive amounts of damage.
Sixthed. Alternatively, the Crusader from the Tome of Battle is a helluva lot more fun than the Paladin, and without the terribad Code, from what I hear.
Let him switch to Pathfinder Paladin. Pathfinder Paladins are truly awesome.
I took a look at the Pathfinder Paladin, aaaand....well, its better than the 3.5 Paladin, but I still don't see how it even compares to the Cleric.
Here's the 3.5 Paladin , and here's the Pathfinder Paladin. The Pathfinder pally has a few extra bells and whistles (a self-enchanting weapon and the ability to remove more status effects with their lay on hands are noticeable, and able to "channel positive energy" as a cleric of his level, rather than as a cleric 3 levels lower is nice), but still....Well, I guess if he wants to stay a Paladin, use the Pathfinder Paladin, but Cleric just seems better any way you slice it.
Let him switch to Pathfinder Paladin. Pathfinder Paladins are truly awesome.
I took a look at the Pathfinder Paladin, aaaand....well, its better than the 3.5 Paladin,
To paraphrase Jon Stewart, 'That's like saying you're the thinnest kid at Fat Camp'.
Let him switch to Pathfinder Paladin. Pathfinder Paladins are truly awesome.
I took a look at the Pathfinder Paladin, aaaand....well, its better than the 3.5 Paladin,
To paraphrase Jon Stewart, 'That's like saying you're the thinnest kid at Fat Camp'.
Hahaha. I was trying to look on the positive side......
How can the paladin possibly be underpowered?! They can remove diseases!! Its a unique weekly ability!!
And yet any character can succeed on a heal check, a universal skill nearly with guaranteed success to anyone with Wisdom, and achieve the same result.
I sat down with my player two days ago and we just scrapped his paladin and re-wrote him as if he was a cleric. Same religion, same equipment, same ability scores, nearly the same skill points, but a much happier player. Now I'm examining options for necromancer opponents so he can embrace the strange and enciting notion of turning. Thanks for the instant, and direct, replies everybody.
Let him switch to Pathfinder Paladin. Pathfinder Paladins are truly awesome.
I took a look at the Pathfinder Paladin, aaaand....well, its better than the 3.5 Paladin, but I still don't see how it even compares to the Cleric.
Here's the 3.5 Paladin , and here's the Pathfinder Paladin. The Pathfinder pally has a few extra bells and whistles (a self-enchanting weapon and the ability to remove more status effects with their lay on hands are noticeable, and able to "channel positive energy" as a cleric of his level, rather than as a cleric 3 levels lower is nice), but still....Well, I guess if he wants to stay a Paladin, use the Pathfinder Paladin, but Cleric just seems better any way you slice it.
It shouldn't be about being compared to the cleric. 3E cleric looks so awesome compared to 3E paladin because aside from Divine Grace and Lay On Hands, 3E paladin isn't really exciting in its own right. Pathfinder Paladin has Smite Evil worthy of being a SMITE! You can get a cool weapon. Lay On Hands is more versatile. You eventually become immune to compulsions too. Pathfinder paladins get so much nifty stuff who cares what the cleric gets. You're a Paladin! Don't look at what others get and be jealous. Look at what you get and be marveled.
1st ..if he can hang on till he is able to cast spells, I do believe I have seen a really nice feat for paladins that makes all of their standard action spells instants (I am sorry I do not have my books with me to reference these things)..
2nd ..I have had to make some house rules, I have let a paladin freely multi class a cleric that worships a lawful good diety, or any of the dieties that list paladins as worshipers, I believe there is even a diety or two with levels in paladin, I have no problem letting them multi class if his cleric worshipped those dieties..
3rd ..(this one will prolly get shot down, which is why I placed it last).. you could make some adjustments to the paladins in your world.. ..I would drop the horse - and let him cast paladin spells the same time he starts turning undead using the same chart that is in the player's handbook just moved up to level 4, I would drop the cure disease - and allow access to lay on hands at first level, and maybe make it double his level times charisma mod OR let him have lay on hands at first level and keep the equation the same but let him do other things with it, say.. ..spend points equall to a diseased character's level to cure them..
... ...or you could just let him make a cleric..
..good luck to you and all that jazz :D
It shouldn't be about being compared to the cleric.
It's actually about comparing the Paladin to every other class and finding it wanting. It's a low Tier 5 class, with absolutely nothing within core that it excells over, and precious little outside of it. We then look to the cleric as a class that is a better fit the Paladin's role, both mechanically and conceptually, than the Paladin.
Pathfinder Paladin has Smite Evil worthy of being a SMITE!
I saw that, and didn't look into it. Smite evil is the same, right? Yeah. Oops, my bad.
You're a Paladin! Don't look at what others get and be jealous. Look at what you get and be marveled.
That may work for some people, but....when other classes can be just as good as my role as they are in other roles, well....
That may work for some people, but....when other classes can be just as good as my role as they are in other roles, well....
Don't be a paladin. Play cleric. He gets all those cool spells. He can cast Divine Favor, Divine Power, and Righteous Might to go all in the face of the monsters to bash them to bits. Paladins suck, play a cleric.
Don't be a cleric. Play druid. A cleric has to cast spells to be able to smack down. Casting spells takes time, even when Quickened. Of course, there's the Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell route, but that is feat intensive and you need lots of nightsticks. Druid don't need any of that. They can change into whatever creature is most appropriate. They can get all the strength, dexterity, and natural ac they need. Druids only need one feat, Natural Spell, and they can still cast spells while kicking butt. Clerics suck, play a druid.
Don't be a druid. Play wizard. Even though the druid can cast spells while wildshaped, they still have to go toe-to-toe againt the bad guys. As a wizard, you can kill your enemies from afar. It's possible for your enemies not even to know you're about to kill them. You can avoid all sorts of dangers. No one can touch you. Druids suck, play a wizard.
Wizard? Pshaw! Just play Pun-Pun already.
If you win a raffle and get $1,000, you'd be very happy. Ten minutes later, there's another raffle and someone else wins $2,500. Should you now be upset, angry, and scream unfair because you only got $1,000?
You should be upset if you are expected to pay $1,500 in taxes on your $1,000, which is what playing a paladin is like.
Encounters have to be balanced party-wide. Something that will challenge the Paladin will not challenge 90% of the classes out there. Something that challenges a tier 3 is going to tell the paladin to go sit in a corner and rethink his life.
Yes, wizards, clerics, and druids are broken. In 3.5, they need close monitoring by the DM to avoid overshadowing everyone else. But, you can always tone down a wizard. You can never amp up a paladin.
> Yes, the barbarian and fighter rolled god-tier strength abilities,
...also points to part of the problem. There's a reason why point-buy became standard.
If you win a raffle and get $1,000, you'd be very happy. Ten minutes later, there's another raffle and someone else wins $2,500. Should you now be upset, angry, and scream unfair because you only got $1,000?
I'd be happy for a friend winning $2,500 right up until the moment where I take everyone to dinner to celebrate my winnings and at the end my friend says "Oh don't bother, I'll cover the bill with my bigger winnings."
That's what it's like to be a 3.5 Paladin next to a 3.5 Cleric (or basically any other actually good class).
If you win a raffle and get $1,000, you'd be very happy. Ten minutes later, there's another raffle and someone else wins $2,500. Should you now be upset, angry, and scream unfair because you only got $1,000?
You aren't winning a raffle. Its not some random chance that you might get something, but you probably have nothing. This is a choose which you want. You are gaurenteed one of them, and there is no penalty for picking the one you want.
This isnt a random chance at bonuses to the baseline, this is establishing your baseline.
As a player, one of his all time favorite magic items is the Cloak of Displacement. In all previous campaigns his character always eventually got one. His reaction when I chose Displacement as one of my spells? Happiness. He doesn't demand I cast it on him. He's just happy we have access to it through me. I've casted it on his Paladin. I've casted it on the Cavalier. Does he go crying because I can have Displacement practically at will? Of course not. He's happy for me I got Displacement, and he still enjoys all the stuff he can do.
[ You're a Paladin! Don't look at what others get and be jealous. Look at what you get and be marveled.
"Wow, this is the shiniest turd I've ever seen!"
In my group's 3.Pathfinder game, the Paladin player is having a blast. He loves his Smite. He likes his Lay On Hands. He's happy of his Divine Grace. He enjoys Battle Blessing casting his very few number of spells. We're 6/7th level now. Reading up on Paladin spells, he noticed he could eventually potentially cast as a 4th level spell (King's Castle) what my Sorcerer has been doing for a couple of levels already as a 1st level spell (Benign Transposition). His reaction? Bemusement at first then not caring. He has his Smite. He has his Lay On Hands. He has all his Paladin goodies. It bugs him not what my character can do.
Which I'm sure is all terribly interesting, but as this thread is NOT about YOUR player, but about SOMEONE ELSE, is all completely irrelevant.
Or, by your logic: as we can point to other people that have had terrible experiences with paladins, your friend's opinion is incorrect (yes, construction is intentional), and he should feel bad.
In my group's 3.Pathfinder game, the Paladin player is having a blast. He loves his Smite. He likes his Lay On Hands. He's happy of his Divine Grace. He enjoys Battle Blessing casting his very few number of spells. We're 6/7th level now. Reading up on Paladin spells, he noticed he could eventually potentially cast as a 4th level spell (King's Castle) what my Sorcerer has been doing for a couple of levels already as a 1st level spell (Benign Transposition). His reaction? Bemusement at first then not caring. He has his Smite. He has his Lay On Hands. He has all his Paladin goodies. It bugs him not what my character can do.
Which I'm sure is all terribly interesting, but as this thread is NOT about YOUR player, but about SOMEONE ELSE, is all completely irrelevant.
Or, by your logic: as we can point to other people that have had terrible experiences with paladins, your friend's opinion is incorrect (yes, construction is intentional), and he should feel bad.
Pay attention.
I'm illustrating my point that you should concern yourself with what your character can do, not someone else's you think is "better". Your character needs to be good enough, not Mary Poppins "Practically perfect in every way."
The player in question found the 3E paladin wanting. Fine. How can the character be improved? Remaking into cleric is one way, but is there another way that still keeps the character a Paladin. Yes. That it doesn't have the Kewl SPells of a cleric shouldn't be relevant. They chose to go with cleric anyway. Fine. It's not my game or character. Still does not take away my point.
Pay attention.
I have been...
I'm illustrating my point that you should concern yourself with what your character can do, not someone else's you think is "better". Your character needs to be good enough, not Mary Poppins "Practically perfect in every way."
...and you haven't, as there has been no one claiming that a class must be Mary Poppins, and the complaint with the paladin is it terrible in every way.
But have fun beating your strawman.
The player in question found the 3E paladin wanting. Fine. How can the character be improved? Remaking into cleric is one way, but is there another way that still keeps the character a Paladin. Yes. That it doesn't have the Kewl SPells of a cleric shouldn't be relevant. They chose to go with cleric anyway. Fine. It's not my game or character. Still does not take away my point.
No, your complete inability to comprehend an argument takes away your point.
Your character needs to be good enough
And most people here believe that a Paladin simply isn't. It's not that hard to understand.
In my group's 3.Pathfinder game, the Paladin player is having a blast......
Cool story. So because Some Guy On The Internet's friend enjoyed it, its totally not underpowered.
Pre-emptive counter to "But you are Some Guy On The Internet saying the opposite". 1- We are Lots Of Guys On The Internet. If one guy says you have a tail laugh, if two say it pause, if 3+ say it look behind you. 2- Repeated number crunching. 3- Consistancy of complaints of "my paladin sucks, I wish it didn't". 4- How much easier the solution of "play a cleric from the same edition" is when compared to "Play a paladin from a different game, based on the original game".
In my group's 3.Pathfinder game, the Paladin player is having a blast......
Cool story. So because Some Guy On The Internet's friend enjoyed it, its totally not underpowered.
Pre-emptive counter to "But you are Some Guy On The Internet saying the opposite". 1- We are Lots Of Guys On The Internet. If one guy says you have a tail laugh, if two say it pause, if 3+ say it look behind you. 2- Repeated number crunching. 3- Consistancy of complaints of "my paladin sucks, I wish it didn't". 4- How much easier the solution of "play a cleric from the same edition" is when compared to "Play a paladin from a different game, based on the original game".
For the past couple of months, Krusk, I've had a (tiny!) chip on my shoulder for a patronizing "let me google that for you" response to one of my posts. After this post, I'm more than willing to forgive you. Well done.
Of course in a tactical, competetive wargame then balance is important. It seems that's what people seem to want which is rather depressing.
Only gamists who don't care about ROLEPLAYING in a ROLEPLAYING game would care this much about 'balance' which shouldn't be that important at all in a ROLEPLAYING game.
Of course in a tactical, competetive wargame then balance is important. It seems that's what people seem to want which is rather depressing.
What's wrong with wanting your hero to be as heroic as the other heroes he travels with?
Only gamists who don't care about ROLEPLAYING in a ROLEPLAYING game would care this much about 'balance' which shouldn't be that important at all in a ROLEPLAYING game.
Of course in a tactical, competetive wargame then balance is important. It seems that's what people seem to want which is rather depressing.
What's wrong with wanting your hero to be as heroic as the other heroes he travels with?
If one's answer to all "balance problems" is just play a cleric, druid, or wizard or ban cleric, druid, and wizard, then admit to yourself already 3E is not for you and play something else. The problem isn't really cleric, druid, and wizard at all but rather your personal perspective. There are plenty of us who have clerics, druids, and wizards in the same campaign as fighters, monks, and paladins, and we have no "balance problem" issues at all. We will share our perspective with those who have a problem in their 3E game, and that it does not agree with those who think clerics rule, paladins drool is just tough noogies.
Because it's nothing to do with being heroic, you just want the exact same numbers and combat buffs. It's rollplaying not roleplaying you care about here. As 4E has proven all a focus on combat and balance does is make every class feel exactly the same. Extreme balance is not good for roleplay. And I don't see why Paladins are so bad anyway especially for those who actually enjoy roleplaying them well as this is you know, a roleplaying game.
And of course the issues people are having are already fixed in Pathfinder.
So I don't see the problem people are having.
Extreme balance is not good for roleplay.
*pats Panosl on the head condescendingly*
You're adorable.
Only gamists who don't care about ROLEPLAYING in a ROLEPLAYING game would care this much about 'balance' which shouldn't be that important at all in a ROLEPLAYING game.
Of course in a tactical, competetive wargame then balance is important. It seems that's what people seem to want which is rather depressing.
Adorable. But that logical fallacy that Roleplaying and Rollplaying are mutually exclusive....
Cute flaming way, lad. Adorable. Are you related to John James Charest?
Only gamists who don't care about ROLEPLAYING in a ROLEPLAYING game would have any game mechanics whatsoever.
Which would be the logical outcome of your argument, and which is why I'm wondering what you're doing at the WotC forums.
And yes, adorable.
If one's answer to all "balance problems" is just play a cleric, druid, or wizard or ban cleric, druid, and wizard, then admit to yourself already 3E is not for you and play something else.
Many of these people might even do so; it's just that you need a group to play, so if you can't find a 4e group that's enough fun to play with, you might have to suffer through 3e instead. Some help on how to be mechanically relevant can be very useful in such a case (note that the OP already mentioned that the player is now rebuilt as a Cleric)
The problem isn't really cleric, druid, and wizard at all but rather your personal perspective. There are plenty of us who have clerics, druids, and wizards in the same campaign as fighters, monks, and paladins, and we have no "balance problem" issues at all.
Which doesn't show you that the Paladin is a good class or that a Paladin is fun to play, just that some people are good at ignoring mechanical issues because they are not relevant to the game they're playing (which is probably entirely different from the game many other people are playing who do have these issues)
We will share our perspective with those who have a problem in their 3E game, and that it does not agree with those who think clerics rule, paladins drool is just tough noogies.
The problem isn't that opinions differ, the problem is the OP says "clerics rule, paladins drool" and the total extent of your "advice" is "no they don't so just ignore the fact that you're not having fun".
I mean; you haven't yet actually explained how you're running your game in such a way that Paladins don't drool. Because it takes a lot of work. Which your group is probably doing subconsciously. But if you want to actually help anyone, you should try to figure out how you've changed the game to make the Paladin relevant. If you can share that with the OP, maybe they can do the same thing to make their Paladin relevant, as well. (Although in this thread it's probably too late by now)
Still, though, the solution to make Paladins suck less is, "Take levels in another class"? That's not exactly looking good...
The solution is mor eor less:
accept the Paladin as what he is: not a spellslinger (like a Cleric, Druid, Wizard) but as a melee combatant with little 'magical' perks.
A Paladin is there if you have want a resilient frontline fighter. A Cleric for when you need a middle-line spellslinger.
A Cleric CAN fight in the front line. If the DM allows it.
accept the Paladin as what he is: not a spellslinger (like a Cleric, Druid, Wizard) but as a horse with little 'magical' perks.
FIFY
Why would the DM have to allow the Cleric to fight on the frontline?
Because The DM needs to use monsters that don't overpower the Clerics (normaly) lower AC and Saving Throws.
@CrowScape: Hehe but no, personaly I don't think of the paladin as a horse.
For the past couple of months, Krusk, I've had a (tiny!) chip on my shoulder for a patronizing "let me google that for you" response to one of my posts. After this post, I'm more than willing to forgive you. Well done.
Thanks. FWIW, in the future if I do something that actually offends/upsets you PM me. I'd be more than happy to edit/apologize. I realize I'm harsh in type because long ago I made the decision that everyone online is 13 and trolling. It helps keep me from caring when someone is wrong on the internet, and/or taking things too seriously. I hope everyone does the same to me.
Only gamists who don't care about ROLEPLAYING in a ROLEPLAYING game would care this much about 'balance' which shouldn't be that important at all in a ROLEPLAYING game.
I literally thought this was a joke the first time I read it. By the end of the thread, maybe it isnt?
The idea that the two are mutually exclusive is dumb, and doesn't fly here or any other DND site. (maybe on paizo's pathfinder forums, not 100% sure, don't go there much). Here people will be nice about shooting you down (the responses to your post are considered relatively nice). Balance is vital for a GAME to be worth playing. Imagine playing monopoly if the car can run the other pieces over and take their money. Meanwhile, the thimble only rolls 1 die for movement. No one ever plays thimbles, and almost everyone is the car.
In DND this leads to a few things.
1 - Traps. New guys who see monks, and think "This is perfect for my martial artist concept" and then don't enjoy the game, because they are regulalrly beaten up in martial arts fights.
2- Overpowered stuff. All cleric/druid/wizard games, because people don't want their PC to die, so they pick the strong stuff. Suddenly the game doesn't work, because nothing is ever hard at all.
3- Varrying power levels. Someone wants to play a fighter, and someone else a wizard in the same game. The fighter looks at his available options to solve a problem and attempts to "Sword it". The wizard says "I summon a dude to sword it while we leave/I charm it so it likes us/I blast it with magic (sword it)/ I allow us to bypass this area or sneak past the challenge. The fighter player votes for swording it, because its his only choice. The wizard player is disgruntled because they would like to vote for one of their other options this time. Instead of always swording it.
Now, this isn't to say that these balance issues are reason to not play the game. Many groups enact house rules to address this. My group bans monks. Now no new guy accidentally picks it. So for our group this isn't an issue. That said, it IS STILL a problem, because the issue remains and we patched it. It would be better to see the issue corrected/not made.
It may be too late, but I as I recall there was a feat called Knight Training (I think) which allowed a Paladin to multi class and still take additional levels of Paladin.
Another show of bad Paladin mechanics. That should never have been a restriction.
No,
The solution is mor eor less:
accept the Paladin as what he is: not a spellslinger (like a Cleric, Druid, Wizard) but as a melee combatant with little 'magical' perks.
A Paladin is there if you have want a resilient frontline fighter. A Cleric for when you need a middle-line spellslinger.
A Cleric CAN fight in the front line. If the DM allows it.
The cleric fights on the front line better than the Paladin. And better than the fighter, the barbarian ... pretty much better than anybody but the druid (whose animal companion outclasses the fighter and paladin ...).
I've never really noticed the Cleric having that much lower AC and saving throws. Nothing that they couldn't make up for with a quick spell, anyway. Once you go beyond the first 5 levels or so, the Cleric can keep up quite well.
I didn't compare the 3.5E Cleric versus Paladin.
However, I did play a Barbarian 8 / Cleric 6.
As a Barbarian 8, I could go berserk 3 times a day. It got me a couple nice bonuses for a few rounds, and then I'd be exhausted.
As a Cleric 6, I could pop a pair of self-buffs 3 times a day. It got me *the same* nice bonuses for *ten minutes*, and then I'd be back to normal.
Clearly, if you want to be a Barbarian, the best way to do it is by taking lots of levels in Cleric.
I mean; you haven't yet actually explained how you're running your game in such a way that Paladins don't drool. Because it takes a lot of work. Which your group is probably doing subconsciously. But if you want to actually help anyone, you should try to figure out how you've changed the game to make the Paladin relevant. If you can share that with the OP, maybe they can do the same thing to make their Paladin relevant, as well. (Although in this thread it's probably too late by now)
I did. I suggest try a Pathfinder Paladin. It has more mojo. The OP dismissed it because the cleric casts spells. I'm saying it shouldn't be about compared to cleric but rather what the paladin can do, and that's how all this hoopla got started.
I mean; you haven't yet actually explained how you're running your game in such a way that Paladins don't drool. Because it takes a lot of work. Which your group is probably doing subconsciously. But if you want to actually help anyone, you should try to figure out how you've changed the game to make the Paladin relevant. If you can share that with the OP, maybe they can do the same thing to make their Paladin relevant, as well. (Although in this thread it's probably too late by now)
I did. I suggest try a Pathfinder Paladin. It has more mojo. The OP dismissed it because the cleric casts spells. I'm saying it shouldn't be about compared to cleric but rather what the paladin can do, and that's how all this hoopla got started.
But that's still just saying "the Paladin is bad". Even the Pathfinder Paladin will be outshine constantly by a 3.5e Cleric. What have you done in your games to make a Pathfinder Paladin fun to play? Why do people derive enjoyment out of being one? How do you make it so that the Cleric doesn't outshine the Paladin consistently?
But that's still just saying "the Paladin is bad". Even the Pathfinder Paladin will be outshine constantly by a 3.5e Cleric. What have you done in your games to make a Pathfinder Paladin fun to play? Why do people derive enjoyment out of being one? How do you make it so that the Cleric doesn't outshine the Paladin consistently?
Technically we're playing P.3 - Pathfinder mostly with some 3E elements ok.
It's very simple. When playing our own character, we don't give a damn what other players do in terms of comparison. As I posted earlier, the paladin player is perfectly happy doing all the cool stuff he gets to do. It does not irk him, at all, not one iota, no fit of jealousy, depression, or rage, that my Sorcerer is casting a 1st level spell since level 5 when I chose it (we're levels 6/7 now) that his paladin would have to wait until level 13 for a 4th level paladin spell to cast the same effect if he wanted to. He enjoys his character for its own sake. He likes to Smite Evil for the cool buff. He likes to use Lay On Hands to save others. He's thrilled with his saving throws thanks to Divine Grace.
When we see what other players get to do with their character and see how cool it is, we're happy for that character and the party as a whole that we have that option. It's all about attitude. When we do find game mechanics getting in the way of fun - it has happened a few of times - we fix it. To "fix it" in all cases except one just meant learning game mastery. They needed to learn better combat tactics in game play and the feat choices needed to make that possible. I helped them along with that. They don't need my help any longer.
The one exception is, ironically, this same campaign. The Cavalier player was getting really annoyed that as adventures demanded, he had to leave his mount behind often and for long periods of time. This meant he lost access to a good amount of his class features and feat choices. It was a game mechanics problem. No question. His class depended on his mount to shine, and he wasn't getting that opportunity often enough. He seriously considered changing characters. Instead, with the help of myself and the DM we did tweak the class a bit. Using the Pathfinder as a "template" and previous incarnations of D&D cavaliers, while still a mounted-focused class, we gave the class the ability to function competently in combat when not on a mount. Personal opinion: when I first read the Cavalier I knew this problem would happen immediately. It's an inherent problem of mounted combat in general. Pathfinder should not have made a Cavalier class. It should have been prestige class.
With that said, despite the player's problem with Cavalier, he did not have a problem, at all, of whatever spells my Sorcerer was casting. He was thrilled that with a couple of castings of Silent Image, Ghost Sound, and Prestidigitation, I was able to sneak the party into a Fortress to suprise attack the bad guys. His problem was with his own character's game mechanics. Whatever it is everyone else could do, he applauded.
That is the point I keep making. Care about what your character can do. If it's lacking, ok, what can you do about it? It is irrelevant what someone else does.
If it's lacking, ok, what can you do about it?
Play a better class.
If it's lacking, ok, what can you do about it?
Play a better class.
And that's the whole problem. And why it is better now with the gameplay balancing and all that.
That's a fine (and probably the only) way to play the game with a party that has warrior types and spellcaster types I think.
Sounds like your players have some kind of silent agreement to not step on each others toes then. If the Paladin can do anything at all in a party with a competent Cleric, then that Cleric has decided not to make the Paladin useless by doing everything he does better, and more as well.
That's a fine (and probably the only) way to play the game with a party that has warrior types and spellcaster types I think.
Probably, but if you think about it, it's awfully condescending. It's kind of like when a kid in a store begs Mommy to let him give the cashier the money or whatever.
equip him a lance. Chose as feat: Power Attack, Mounted Combat, Spirited Charge.
When the the character wield his lance, he can do heavy damage (dmg x3). I suggest to use the lance two-handed with power attack to maximize dmg.
For the sake of it, let's suppose he got +4 strenght bonus and uses power attack to its maximum (-5 att +10 dmg),
Dmg will look like this: 3d8 + 18 (3x6) + 30 (3x10). The average damage per attack dmg would be 61,5
Well... you may ask... why not play this character as a fighter instead? There is one advantage I can see... Your horse get stronger as you do. Your mount won't be as much vunerable. If It may not seem enough... There is divine Grace that still kick **** :P
I don't know if I would play this build... I think it might be best to start as fighter for the first 2 level (as it will allow you to gain 2 free feats and to get weapon specialization) and to continue as paladin afterward. Human would be the race of choice for this build as you won't get Malus XP and because you'll love his bonus feat.
Okay, yes, a 'wrath -of-the-gods' build cleric is pretty powerful. Maybe the cleric player doesn’t want to play that way? So take out that outlier (which trounces everything but a high level mage).
The paladin gets crazy good saves assuming they have a moderate to high charisma.
The paladin can act as a secondary healer, which is advantageous.
The paladin gets a slightly better BAB progression then the cleric.
The paladin gets a special mount that can be upgraded to some nifty things later on.
To make the best use of their abilities the paladin needs more high stats then the cleric, a big disadvantage in point buy and not so much so in rolled scores. ex: you get a number of high stats and say "Woot!, I'll give that paladin idea a whirl!" because they aren’t as much of an advantage for a cleric (except for that WOTG type build).
But there is probably one really good reason for playing a paladin over a cleric: You get to play the classic Knight in Shining Armor off to save everyone from Evil... : )
But there is probably one really good reason for playing a paladin over a cleric: You get to play the classic Knight in Shining Armor off to save everyone from Evil... : )
You can do that with ANY class that wears metal armor.
He was the star of the party. The main man. I had a dire eagle so I was able to charge badies to death from above! I also got my special mount that acts as my wingmen then a mount. I was a force to be reckon with. I was a war machine from the air and land, baby!
I dare you make a 7lv cleric that can handle a flying charger and a special war horse that likes to grapple. Cleric pin down by a horse? Let that image sink in your mind
. I had a few DMs say that a horse can't grapple, but trust me. They can grapple. ;)
Paladins don't have to focus on mount feats, they can be strikers. Just take power attack, cleave, combat expertise, and improved trip. Or you could take improve unarmed strike and grapple to assist your warhorse with the grappling(yeah <3).
That's my two cents on how to play a paladin in 3.5e
You are correct. A paladins mount is not terrible, and probably the paladins best choice.
Its unclear though, do you have a dire eagle and a horse? Thats even better honestly, your dire eagle and horse are awesome, not your paladin.
More importantly, we've been over anecdotal evidence and why just because you are enjoying your paladin, it doesn't mean all paladins are good. ****, I enjoy the paladin class, but I also recognize that if I had chosen cleric I could do all the same and more.
I dare you make a 7lv cleric that can handle a flying charger and a special war horse that likes to grapple. Cleric pin down by a horse? Let that image sink in your mind
"I go indoors."
>> (I think) which allowed a Paladin to multi class and still take additional
>> levels of Paladin.
>
> Another show of bad Paladin mechanics. That should never have been a
> restriction.
As Sean K. Reynolds (who worked for WotC during 3E's development) told it, it wasn't ever intended to be, but the RPGA playtesters at the time screamed and yelled about how being a paladin (or a monk) should require 'dedication' that the developers put the limit on those classes in the final version (it hadn't been in the drafts until then). And then - ironically - the throw-away feats (Knight Training and the equivalent monk one) became necessary for RPGA play because simply allowing people to ignore the restriction (the developers' preference) was 'against RAW'.
While the Paladin's mount is the class's best feature, the mount has a slight flaw in that it doesn't benefit from the Paladin's excellent saving throws. So, a 7th level cleric that does not have the option of moving indoors need only focus on neutralizing the mount first, then the next round he can deal with the walking tin can.
I'm pretty sure the special mount share saving throws. Just can't remember what level.
While the Paladin's mount is the class's best feature, the mount has a slight flaw in that it doesn't benefit from the Paladin's excellent saving throws. So, a 7th level cleric that does not have the option of moving indoors need only focus on neutralizing the mount first, then the next round he can deal with the walking tin can.
I'm pretty sure the special mount share saving throws. Just can't remember what level.
Share Saving Throws
For each of its saving throws, the mount uses its own base save bonus or the paladin’s, whichever is higher. The mount applies its own ability modifiers to saves, and it doesn’t share any other bonuses on saves that the master might have.
This only affects the base saving throw modifier; the mount doesn't get to add the Paladin's other bonuses, from spells or class features. The horse is still a sitting duck.
While the Paladin's mount is the class's best feature, the mount has a slight flaw in that it doesn't benefit from the Paladin's excellent saving throws. So, a 7th level cleric that does not have the option of moving indoors need only focus on neutralizing the mount first, then the next round he can deal with the walking tin can.
Been looking at the clerics 1-4lv spells, nothing say about killing a paladin. I think the worse thing is getting curse and that's about it. Don't say he summon a planer creature because he won't have 10 mintues to summon the thing.
Alright here is my paladin stats and his mounts. Here a few rules. This character played The Living Greyhawk campaign so everything is fair. Cleric must be a playable race(no half dragon, etc) and feats and spells must be acceptable by the campaign.
Wojek Siren (human, 7lv paladin)
hp 60
AC 24 (23 flat footed) Fort +10, Ref +6, Will +6
BA +6
+1 long sword +10/+5 1d8+3, mwk lance +10/+5 1d8+2
Lay on hand heals 14 damage(sad I know), can cast 2 1lv spells. These 2 spells will be Resurgence which give a subject a second chance at a saving throw. They last until I use it.
Feats: Mounted Combat, Ride by Attack, Spirted Charge, and Power Attack.
Skill: +13 Ride, +12 Handle Animal
Magic Item: Armbands of Might, gives my paladin +2 damage on any attack that I used with a power attack and takes a penalty at least a -2 on my attack roll.
Tank ( 6HD heavy war horse, special mount)
hp 48
AC 22 (21 flat footed) Fort +8, Ref +6, Will +3
BA +4 Grapple +12
Attack: +8 hooves 1d8+4
Full Attack: 2 +8 hooves 1d8+4 and +3 bite 1d4+2
Dire Eagle (5HD large animal)
Hp 37
AC 22 (17 flat footed) Fort +7, Ref +8, Will +3
BA +3 Grapple +12
Attack +7 talon 1d8+5
Full Attack 2 +7 talon 1d8+5 and +2 bite 1d8+2
If you can prove to me that a 7lv cleric can handle all 3 of them, then I'll admit a cleric is better then a paladin. My paladin tanked a 7lv sorcerer at lv 3 so I can't imagine a 7lv cleric killing my paladin along with his 2 mounts.
Edit: Forgot the bird's AC and saves.
And why won't he have 10 minutes to summon the planar creature? It last for days.
But ok, we'll let you have that. This isn't a planned battle, this is something unexpected.
At level three the cleric takes either Divine Metamagic (Persistant Spell) (Coupled with Nightsticks if we don't want to give the Paladin any chance in the world) or Divine Metamagic (Quicken). Your Paladin is now either dealing with a cleric that is way over buffed for him to handle (Persistant Spell) or that can cast any spell as a swift action (or a summon monster IV as a standard; if you're really unlucky, you just had three celestial bisons dropped on top of your "tank"). Give him the undeath domain, and the cleric has some additional turns to throw into his spells (and probably a 14 HD undead creature as a pet). Your Paladin is toast.
Edit: I'm sorry, I messed up. That cleric would have 2 14HD undead creatures as pets, not one. I don't even think he has to be around for the battle, honestly. Maybe just long enough to cast summon monster IV.
Since I don't see anything that gives the Paladin an additional companion in your list, then the cleric also gets a Dire Eagle with the same stats. They cancel out (except, the cleric can probably buff the Dire Eagle more than the Paladin can, so +1 to cleric here).
And why won't he have 10 minutes to summon the planar creature? It last for days.
But ok, we'll let you have that. This isn't a planned battle, this is something unexpected.
At level three the cleric takes either Divine Metamagic (Persistant Spell) (Coupled with Nightsticks if we don't want to give the Paladin any chance in the world) or Divine Metamagic (Quicken). Your Paladin is now either dealing with a cleric that is way over buffed for him to handle (Persistant Spell) or that can cast any spell as a swift action (or a summon monster IV as a standard; if you're really unlucky, you just had three celestial bisons dropped on top of your "tank"). Give him the undeath domain, and the cleric has some additional turns to throw into his spells (and probably a 14 HD undead creature as a pet). Your Paladin is toast.
Edit: I'm sorry, I messed up. That cleric would have 2 14HD undead creatures as pets, not one. I don't even think he has to be around for the battle, honestly. Maybe just long enough to cast summon monster IV.
The bird was out of my paycheck. I had to pay 4,200 gp, it's just a regular mount. If I didn't spend that much money on a bird then I would use it to improve my armor or something. Since your cleric doesn't specialize in mounts and my guy have a ride skill and feats. I'm pretty sure I won this one.
Coupled of nightsticks? Cheap? Yeah right. Those things worth 7.5k each. My guy only earn 18k through out of campaign, 19k if you count the upkeep living. Just getting two leaves you with 4k, not including upkeep living or just buying extra stuff to keep you alive. I'm going to enjoy hitting your AC.
The lesser planer spell is expensive, look it up and you will see why. To keep the creature working for you a whole day cost you 6k gp if he is a 6HD. Expensive, huh?
3 bisons, AC 13. Are you going to summon them in the open so I can kill them or you going to share a room?
2 14HD Undead? That 700gp right there. You down to 2.3k gp. Unless you guys are sharing a room, I guess I'll fly down and kill them off.
Now if all you guys are sharing a room, I guess I'll buy myself a dozen cheap lances and collapse the roof. Hopefully it does some decent when it fall on you guys. Then I'll keep working at the walls until I can hit your large undead creatures, then kill them off.
I can use my bow to force you to protect yourself or summon creatures so I pick them off. Once you burn your spells, I'll summon my special mount, drink a bull strength potion, then the 3 of us are going to pin you down and I'm going to choke your overbuff cleric while my mounts fight off whatever summon you have left if any.
Now I assume the building is made out of stone, because burning you alive would be interesting. Speaking of fire, I think I have a few oil left and 5 alchemist's fire incase of swarms.
Did you play out this whole scenario or you didn't think my paladin couldn't fly?
The bird was out of my paycheck. I had to pay 4,200 gp, it's just a regular mount. If I didn't spend that much money on a bird then I would use it to improve my armor or something. Since your cleric doesn't specialize in mounts and my guy have a ride skill and feats. I'm pretty sure I won this one.
Your paladin is riding the eagle and the horse at the same time? I'd like to see that. But sure, cleric doesn't bother with the eagle, then. Doesn't have to.
Coupled of nightsticks? Cheap? Yeah right. Those things worth 7.5k each. My guy only earn 18k through out of campaign, 19k if you count the upkeep living. Just getting two leaves you with 4k, not including upkeep living or just buying extra stuff to keep you alive. I'm going to enjoy hitting your AC.
English is not your first language, is it? First, I can easily meet the basic needs for my character through 7 levels on 100 gp. In my play, I rarely use consumables (and those I use at high level, when the cost for scrolls and wands of level 1 spells are negligible). So, 18,900 gp for equipment. Not my fault that your Paladin is a hedonist. Second: "coupled with," not "coupled of," which is horribly grammatically incorrect anyway. And it's only for the Persist build, and not even necessary. But yes, if I want to, I could buy two and still kill your Paladin. At level 7, masterwork arms and armor do not put me at any significant disadvantage in this fight.
The lesser planer spell is expensive, look it up and you will see why. To keep the creature working for you a whole day cost you 6k gp if he is a 6HD. Expensive, huh?
Well, good thing that you had forbidden me from using it then. I guess you sure showed me.
3 bisons, AC 13. Are you going to summon them in the open so I can kill them or you going to share a room?
Out in the open, surrounding (flanking) your mount. Your mount will die before you can take care of my free, summoned creatures. But hey, if you're going to waste rounds on killing them, and not me, all the better. What, you did know that I get one round for each of yours, right?
2 14HD Undead? That 700gp right there. You down to 2.3k gp. Unless you guys are sharing a room, I guess I'll fly down and kill them off.
Please do. They're zombie remorhazes.
Now if all you guys are sharing a room, I guess I'll buy myself a dozen cheap lances and collapse the roof. Hopefully it does some decent when it fall on you guys. Then I'll keep working at the walls until I can hit your large undead creatures, then kill them off.
You're assuming a lot of facts not in evidence, there. Like, for one, that I will sit there for twelve rounds letting you knock the roof in. For two, that it's not a cave. For three, that it's not populated with neutral characters that aren't going to be happy about you trying to break their stuff. But, it's good to know that if I'm sleeping alone in a wooden structure, you could kill me in 12 rounds. Truly, your Paladin is a force of nature.
I can use my bow to force you to protect yourself or summon creatures so I pick them off. Once you burn your spells, I'll summon my special mount, drink a bull strength potion, then the 3 of us are going to pin you down and I'm going to choke your overbuff cleric while my mounts fight off whatever summon you have left if any.
Yeah, you really don't know how any of this works, do you? I summon what I want, where I want. If you're flying, I summon a bunch of flying creatures right next to your eagle (celestial hippogriffs, for example). They will do some mean mid-air grappling and you will all fall. Your eagle will die, you will be hurt, my summoned creatures will die (boo-hoo), and then two remorhazes burst out of the ground and swallow you whole. Since you didn't think to include a light blade on your list of items, I'm guessing you will just have to sit in one of their gullets, taking 2d8+12 damage plus 8d6 fire damage a round. 700gp for that? Yes please.
And this is all before we get to what my cleric is even optimized for.
Now I assume the building is made out of stone, because burning you alive would be interesting. Speaking of fire, I think I have a few oil left and 5 alchemist's fire incase of swarms.
The building is an orphanage. Please set it on fire. Pretty please. I would love to have your special mount abandon you first thing in the fight, and wind up attacking a multiple attribute dependent fighter without the bonus feats.
Did you play out this whole scenario or you didn't think my paladin couldn't fly?
I did play it out, even with a flying paladin. You lose.
dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dra...
I went to build a character to stand side by side with your pally, to show the same numbers but higher across the board, and I noticed you didn't give stats, or a point buy. You also don't list starting gold, but then complain how the cleric uses his.
If you want to challenge people to build a better PC than yours, you need to provide all the info for yours.