Which would you rather have in your party?

[Darmanicus]

Which do you think would be more useful/powerful to have in your party, a 10th-level half-celestial paladin, or a 10th-level human paladin and an 8th-level cleric? Why?

2 characters definitely better than 1.

I don't agree with the 1/2 celestial template being able to be gained as a character though unless of course you're making him from scratch instead of having just levelled. In the instance of having levelled I'd be more comfortable of letting you gain the celestial template as that is something characters can aspire to such as, I think, the monk at 20th.

If you want to work for a template as a paladin though why don't you consider the route that I'm trying for..........saint; it's really good.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Pendragon,

It is logically possible for an option to be both less powerful and more unbalancing.

If I am playing another PC in the same party, while I do expect your PC's cohort to look at his good friend's interest first most of the time, I expect him to assist me too when I need a hand or to consider putting me first when it is in the interest of the party as a whole. The cleric cohort can enhance the survivability of the entire party in a way that a single potent Paladin might not.

Even a large diffuse increase in power can easily handled by the DM making very modest incremental changes in power level of the opposition, and still keep the game fun for all. Concentrated power is what causes the DM problems... Then you can get scenarios where the entire party will die if one particular PC rolls a '1' on the saving throw.

 

[Scion]

Was my suggestion earlier about a modified leadership feat which gives a symbiote from the paladins god which grants the half celestial template a bad one?

In that case the paladin could 'give up' his template now and then to have someone else gain the benefit for a time.. but only for a time.

It would help to protect innocents

anyway, I see little difference there.. some creature which constantly gives a list of benefits.. or some creature which can cast a list of spells to give some benefits..

I see the overall problem, but I think with proper management it can be done in such a way as to not cause overall problems.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

anyway, I see little difference there.. some creature which constantly gives a list of benefits.. or some creature which can cast a list of spells to give some benefits..

I see the overall problem, but I think with proper management it can be done in such a way as to not cause overall problems.

Maybe, yes.

The main difference I see is that a symbiote/creature is a lump sum ability that can not be easily doled out across the party if situation warrants it.

Borrowing/lending the symbiote is certainly a big improvement over just tacking on a fixed template. It opens intriguingly weird possibilities.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Pendragon,

It is logically possible for an option to be both less powerful and more unbalancing.

Yes, I can see that possibility.

If I am playing another PC in the same party, while I do expect your PC's cohort to look at his good friend's interest first most of the time, I expect him to assist me too when I need a hand or to consider putting me first when it is in the interest of the party as a whole. The cleric cohort can enhance the survivability of the entire party in a way that a single potent Paladin might not.

While I disagree that a cohort should put you first over his mentor, even if it is in the interest of the party as a whole, I do see your point. There are certainly situations where a cohort might use his abilities on other party members, because it is in the interests of his mentor for the party to be strong. A template prevents the gained powers from being used on other party members (well, perhaps the cure spells gained from the template, but generally.) Still I wonder whether this change in the nature of the power makes that power unbalancing.

Even a large diffuse increase in power can easily handled by the DM making very modest incremental changes in power level of the opposition, and still keep the game fun for all. Concentrated power is what causes the DM problems... Then you can get scenarios where the entire party will die if one particular PC rolls a '1' on the saving throw.

Yes, I can see your point. The various "help me challenge the monk!" or "help me challenge the barbarian!" threads here on the boards attest to the veracity of what you say. One extremely powerful PC can make DMing more difficult. I do wonder whether the particular case I've presented is such a case, though. While it's a nominal ECL +4, the template does not provide the kinds of upgrades I'd be most worried about: spell levels above normal, extra attacks, indefensible special abilities, etc. Instead, it provides some stat bonuses (which as a whole are impressive, but to each individual stat are modest,) a small list of spells, most of which are curative in nature (certainly helpful to the party as a whole) and a nice set of defensive abilities (SR/DR/extra hp). Is that enough to make the paladin into a juggernaut?

Naturally, I expect the paladin to become more powerful if this concept is approved and carried out. But would he become powerful enough to send my DM running here to post a "how do I challenge my paladin?" thread? I'm not sure.

Incidentally, though I've suggested the idea to my DM, I'm still not sure if I'll choose it, even if approved. It occurs to me that I may be opening a pandora's box. If I do this, then nothing prevents every other member of the party from doing the same, which then merely creates a general escalation of power.

It was pointed out earlier that there'd probably be no question of a problem, if every other player already had a cohort. Since nobody does, though, this creates a problem.

*sigh* I'm still giving it thought, though I'm beginning to come to the depressing conclusion that Leadership simply won't be possible in any form. The party's too large for the traditional cohort, and every non-traditional cohort I've thought of seems unbalanced or unfair in some way.

 

[Scion]

how about something that moves fairly slowly, has no real attacks, decent defense, and levels in marshal?

then everyone gets a boost, everyone is slightly better, and since it has no real actions of its own it doesnt have to do much!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I certainly feel your pain. I really do.

I am playing a paladin in one campaign and I really wanted a cohort -- it fit my character's personality. But the DM preferred I not do that because of the size of the party.

The DM suggested the idea of an enhanced warhorse instead of a cohort. An 8th level paladin has an 8 HD warhorse. In a party of 7th and 8th level non-optimized characters the raw smashing power of the vanilla warhorse is uncomfortable close to other PCs already. After many hours of wrangling there was just no progressive template we could agree on -- reasonable looking power scalings on paper were either too powerful at the outset or too weak at higher levels.

We eventually gave up.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

One extremely powerful PC can make DMing more difficult. I do wonder whether the particular case I've presented is such a case, though. While it's a nominal ECL +4, the template does not provide the kinds of upgrades I'd be most worried about: spell levels above normal, extra attacks, indefensible special abilities, etc. Instead, it provides some stat bonuses (which as a whole are impressive, but to each individual stat are modest,) a small list of spells, most of which are curative in nature (certainly helpful to the party as a whole) and a nice set of defensive abilities (SR/DR/extra hp). Is that enough to make the paladin into a juggernaut?

Dunno. Depends on the style of the campaign and party, so I hesitate to generalize.

It seems clear to me that a Feat that gave a flat +2 unnamed bonus to any one stat would be considered "broken" by all the Balance Nazis (like myself) when compared to the core feats. I cannot see how the multiple stat boosts can fit into the game system as anything other than a Level Adjustment.

Personally I think that +4 LA is preposterous, but I would also note that the stat dependency problems of the Paladin and Monk become significant advantages when Half-Celestial is applied. The Paladin looks like a pretty power optimal choice, so I cannot see cause to be particularly lenient. Rating it less than +3 in your case makes me nervous.

Also consider that if you get Half-Celestial, the Half-Orc should be allowed to take Half-Dragon...

 

[Shin Okada]

Whats mmu1 says.

Cohort is more versatile and often more useful than ECL +4 template. Still, leadership feat is often allowed and still one feat. And ECL +4 template is usually not allowed to be taken instead of a feat.

Why? Because 2 characters are still 2 characters. And one really strong hero is a one really strong hero. Using lesser sidekick (cohort) is not something everyone want to do. But many people want to play a stronger hero. That is why cohort is usually allowed, and most DM will never allow to take ECL +4 template as one feat.

 

[mmu1]

I do wonder whether the particular case I've presented is such a case, though. While it's a nominal ECL +4, the template does not provide the kinds of upgrades I'd be most worried about: spell levels above normal, extra attacks, indefensible special abilities, etc. Instead, it provides some stat bonuses (which as a whole are impressive, but to each individual stat are modest,) a small list of spells, most of which are curative in nature (certainly helpful to the party as a whole) and a nice set of defensive abilities (SR/DR/extra hp). Is that enough to make the paladin into a juggernaut?

I've played a Half-Celestial Fighter in a high level campaign (stopped playing at 21st). Provided you don't start at low levels, the template is worth it even if you have to pay the level adjustment - without the ECL, it would be completely overpowering.

For one thing, it it's one hell of a boost in terms of combat power: +2 to hit and damage, 20 extra HP, +1 or +2 AC (depending on what armor you wear), some minor damage resistance, moderate elemental resistances, immunity to disease, a smite attack, and +4 to saves vs. poison.

It also does interesting things to your saves - an effective +4 to Fort and Will, and +3 to Ref (for a Paladin, thanks to the +4 Charisma). If your Charisma was high to begin with, then combined with Spell Resistance, this tends to make you incredibly resistant to magic - so much so, that the DM either has to forget about trying to use spells on you, or use DCs so high the rest of the party won't be able to handle them.

And the spell-like abilities absolutely kick ass at higher levels (while at lower levels, they're still useful and respectable), as does flight - in particular since you get Good maneuverability.