Which would you rather have in your party?

[Scion]

It is nice, but worth a +4 LA? even at higher levels I would assume the answer to that to be no.

A feat that lowers LA by 1 or 2 points seems like an interesting idea though

 

[mmu1]

It is nice, but worth a +4 LA? even at higher levels I would assume the answer to that to be no.

A feat that lowers LA by 1 or 2 points seems like an interesting idea though

That character was vastly more effective at 21st level with the +4 ECL than a straight-up 21st level fighter would have been.

Maybe that's because of how pathetically vulnerable to certain types of magic the fighting classes are at very high levels, but that still means the ECL is worth it, even if the template is overpriced.

 

[Scion]

Since I feel that the fighter is the weakest class in both 3.0 and 3.5 by a wide margin I feel that I cannot reliably comment on that

But even then, comparing a 20th level fighter vs a 16th level fighter/half celestial.. ::shrugs::

Comparing a real class though would make the comparison much more damning.

I dont really think this is the place for this sort of debate though I guess.

Go with the marshal npc cohort who has no real actions! then you dont have to worry about it and everyone gets a few interesting minor buffs. It is good all around!

 

[Lord Pendragon]

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.

I agree. Before you consider the LA, Half-Celestial is very synergetic with the paladin class, which is heavily dependent on pretty much every stat except Int and to a lesser extent, Dex. So the bonuses, plus the flavor, attracted me to the template. However, at a +4 LA, that means giving up 4d10 hp (so the hp gained from con are a wash,) -4 BAB (Ouch! +4 to strength won't make up for that!) -a factor of 4 from Lay on Hands (which means the half-celestial's Lay on Hands is actually worse compared to an equivalent ECL paladin)...a weaker mount...it just isn't worth it. +3 would be questionable, +2 a strong choice, and +1 overpowered, or it seems to me.

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.

I originally thought it was +3 (wasn't it in 3.0?) and it still seems like an underpowered choice. You lose a lot for what you gain. +2 may be stronger than balanced, though, so I'm not sure what to make of it.

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

Exactly. If I can use Leadership to gain a template, everyone can. This is one of the reasons I decided against it. The DM might as well hand out free levels.

Since I feel that the fighter is the weakest class in both 3.0 and 3.5 by a wide margin I feel that I cannot reliably comment on that

Wow. Our half-orc fighter regularly outdamages the paladin, usually by double or triple the amount of damage. Of course, our game is a dungeon-crawl, so combat is the central focus of the game, which is of course where the fighter shines.

 

[Darklone]

Yeah, getting 4 free levels of ECL for a feat would be soooo cheap

But: I don't agree about your considerations about the half-celestial template... all those resistances, DR (Ok, magic, but sometimes you do fight critters who don't ignore it), SR and other goodies like the wings and all stat boosts together make easily up for these 4 paladin levels at higher levels. 16pal celestial compared to a 20 pal dude? 32 hitpoints vs. 4d10 averaging to 22 hitpoints? Works for me.

BAB is the only thing there that really hurts, while strength and charisma boosts (Divine Might) effectively increase your damage output.

 

[Endur]

But the fact that 50+ people would choose the paladin+cleric over 3 people choosing the half-celestial paladin, leads me to believe that the general ENWorld consensus is that the cohort would be more powerful than what I'm suggesting.

Your poll question was biased, and that skewed the poll results (don't take this personally, most poll questions are biased in some way). First, the ECL issue wasn't clearly identified (Paladin 10 + half-celestial template or Paladin 6 + half-celestial template). Second, the leadership feat wasn't identified. Third, it wasn't clear that the character(s) were being added to an existing party that already has a cleric in it.

Cleric spellcasting is anything but. The 8th-level cleric could hit the paladin with Greater Magic Weapon every morning and the occasional Divine Favor, at a cleric's caster level, and more than equal the paladin's entire spellcasting ability.

But, the Paladin belongs to a party, and can already count on all of these benefits being cast on him by a level 10 cleric (and would prefer the 10th level version anyways). He doesn't need a level 8 cleric for this. So the Template is just gravy.

FYI, Divine Favor is caster only.

 

[Scion]

16pal celestial compared to a 20 pal dude? 32 hitpoints vs. 4d10 averaging to 22 hitpoints? Works for me.

32 hp from con vs 22 + 4xcon mod. I can easily see the base levels being worth many more hp. Start with a 12, have a +6 item, that is 32 hp vs 38. Neither of those stipulations are unreasonable. Plus, that is only at the maximum effect for nonepic levels. Lower levels pulls the base paladin farther ahead.

 

[two]

It's pretty obvious to me.

Twice the hitpoints.

Twice the actions.

Twice the survivability.

Twice the flexibility.

Twice (ok, maybe 1.5x) the damage output.

Twice the tactical opportunities.

etc.

Paladin10+Cleric8 is very, very, very formidable.

 

[sledged]

Twice the hitpoints.

For a cleric 8 to have the same hitpoints as a paladin 10, the rolls for the cleric would have to be pretty damn good, or for the paladin really bad. Either that or drastic difference between constitution scores.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Your poll question was biased, and that skewed the poll results (don't take this personally, most poll questions are biased in some way). First, the ECL issue wasn't clearly identified (Paladin 10 + half-celestial template or Paladin 6 + half-celestial template). Second, the leadership feat wasn't identified. Third, it wasn't clear that the character(s) were being added to an existing party that already has a cleric in it.

Actually, I believe my poll was non-biased, which was what I was going for. How the cleric gets into the party is immaterial the the discussion. I wanted to know the relative balance of a templated paladin versus a paladin and cleric, not hear arguments against the Leadership feat. And our party cleric (who is now a cleric3/bard1,) has not cast a single non-healing spell on anyone but himself in seven sessions and counting. So again, the presence of another cleric is largely irrelevant. The poll answered the question I wanted answered nicely.

But, the Paladin belongs to a party, and can already count on all of these benefits being cast on him by a level 10 cleric (and would prefer the 10th level version anyways). He doesn't need a level 8 cleric for this. So the Template is just gravy.

FYI, Divine Favor is caster only.

As I stated above, this simply isn't true, which is why the composition of our party isn't important. You're correct about Divine Favor though. Fortunately, a cleric 8 would still have a ton of other spells he could cast on the paladin instead.