D&D 4E Paladins - The first 4e class to fail

[Herschel]

I think the main problem with the so-called "MAD" classes is that people ignored the advice in the PHB.

The problem is that many players seem to think that there is a third build. What I like to call the "But why can't I do everything" Paladin. Or Cleric. Or Ranger. Or Warlock. While some classes like the Fighter and the Wizard can go through life concentrating on one Attack stat, other classes have more difficulty doing so. In those cases, it's best to just pick one stat and stick with it.

Amen.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

A good swordsman knows the tricks with swords. You seem to be implying that proficiency is enough to declare the concept achieved, when that would only be true in a relative sense when comparing with non-sword users. In short you can not claim your character is a good <insert weapon> master when you clearly are lacking the feats regarding that weapon.

I don't agree with that. There's a difference between an undisputed master that can best anyone in the realm, and the guy that best 90% of the people in the realm. The Paladin can easily be the latter without sacrificing much, but for the former he'll have to sacifice a LOT.

By the same token though, there's a difference between someone who spends every waking moment training with their weapon of choice in order to become the greatest swordmaster in the world, and a servant of a deity that has to split his time between prayer or worshiping his god and training with his chosen weapon so that he can enforce his god's will through strength of arm. The former is a Fighter, the latter is a Paladin. This is what I meant when I talked about the third ""But why can't I do everything" build. The Fighter's schtick is to be the undisputed master of a particular weapon, or weapons. But you want all the expertise of a Fighter with all of the divine power of the Paladin...but you don't want to sacrifice for it. You see the problem?

Whenever someone talks about the Paladin multiclassing, that's more ammunition for the argument that the paladin class doesn't measure up. You shouldn't have to leave the paladin class to be a better paladin. For the record I'm aiming for Champion of Order - my character will be a good swordsman (not great btw - that's fighter territory).

So you're going to be a good, but not great, swordsman? Then why is it necessary to have HBO and Heavy Blade Mastery? As for the multiclassing thing, that's bunk. This system is muc less about the "class name" and more about what role and abilities you want. A Paladin/Fighter is really just a Paladin that's concentrating more on the martial skills, at the expense of some of his divine powers. Rather than detracting from "what a Paladin should be" it's actually representing one Paladin's shift to more of a focus on martial abilities when compared to his peers. He would still go through life in the game saying "I'm a Paladin", not "I'm a Paladin/Fighter".

And let's be clear, before any feat issues are taken into account, the paladin is suffering from MAD. Str for basic attacks, Cha for DC, Wis for healing/riding effects, and Con because you'll be getting hit a lot. The plain vanilla guy is wanting a minimum base 16, 14, 12, 10 - or 16 of 22 points, right from go.

I've covered the human racial traits. Basically the single boost and 3rd at-will do not make a Paladin great. I'd put Humans behind Dragonborn & Half Elves, and in competition with the Elf & Dwarf for 3rd place. This is not what the human write up indicates.

Frankly, it feels like the Paladin was rushed out there rather underdone.

Again, there's two builds here. The book specifically tells you that certain stats are more or less important depending on build. By your definition, plenty of classes are MAD. Take Fighters, for example. They STR to hit, WIS for Combat Superiority, CON for hitpoints and survivability and then a concentration on another score depending on their weapon choice. If that ability happens to be CON or WIS they can mitigate it, but if they want to go Heavy Blades that means they need DEX, and a lot of it.

That's 4 abilities they have juggle. How is that any different than the Pally? Fighters that are concentrating in particular weapon groups like that need to make some decisions about how to split their stats too. My Dragonborn Axe Fighter that's going Inner Dragon, for example? He's going STR/CON with an 18/16, which means that I had to drop WIS down to a 12. It'll only ever get up to a 14 or 16, depending on if I put any points into it beyond the +1 to everything per tier. This means that Combat Superiority is relatively weak for me, but I did it because I need to qualify for some feats and I want to actually be able to hit with the Dragon Blast power I'm picking up with my PP. So it's not like the Paladins are the only class that have to juggle, everyone does. You can't be good at every single thing that your class does, that's just not how the system works.

As for your complaints about Humans...well, they're typical of most any class that you use Humans for. Most people don't have a great need for a 3rd At-Will, although it ROCKS for Wizards. People also miss that extra +2 to a second ability score, but then you gain in the fact that all your defenses go up by +1...which, when you think about it, is actually a pretty good ability for a Paladin.

Lastly, look at Martial Power and what that did for the Martial classes. There are tons of class specific feats, many of them exclusive to Humans (technically Half-Elves too). There are also new builds, new powers and new At-Wills for every class. While yes, it would be nice to have 3 STR At-Wills and 3 CHR At-Wills for each build, no class got those (see also: Cleric and Warlock for Human 3rd At-Will issues). If Martial Power was any indication though there should be some new At-Wills for each of the builds, thus giving your 3rd At-Will option.

So no, I don't think that they rushed it and broke it. I just think that you have unrealistic expectations as to what the Paladin should be capable of. When you compare it to the other dual or multi-build classes, they have the same issues as everyone else.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

A good swordsman knows the tricks with swords. You seem to be implying that proficiency is enough to declare the concept achieved, when that would only be true in a relative sense when comparing with non-sword users. In short you can not claim your character is a good <insert weapon> master when you clearly are lacking the feats regarding that weapon.

Yeah, but if the core of the concept is an expert sword master, you`ve picked the wrong class.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I play a paladin whom I want to be a good swordsman.

I believe I've found your problem. You want to combine a class with a fighting style it's not built for.

4E D&D doesn't allow for "builds to taste" nearly as much as 3E did. This isn't a Paladin issue. It's a 4E issue. The Paladin has two builds, and the PHB is clear what they are. If you want to be the best possible swordsman, play a Fighter.

 

[Irda Ranger]

So, for my substantive contribution to the thread: The OP's contention is merely wrong. The Paladin can certainly be improved by the addition of Divine Power (just as the Fighter was improved by Martial Power), but (speaking from playtest experience) it is far too strong to say that the class as written has "failed" in any sense.

So far I only have personal experience with the Chr-Paladin, but from what I've seen the Paladin is highly survivable, a more-than competent Defender and a great "second line" Leader. That's different than the Fighter, but different is good. If they were the same there'd be no point in having different classes.

From what I can tell the only main weakness of the Str-Paladin is less-than-optimal power selection; clearly something that can be improved with just a single supplement. That does not classify as "failure."

 

[Varis]

I basically have to disagree with the general direction of this paragraph.

I play a paladin whom I want to be a good swordsman. Now to simulate this mechanically I need these feats for this character - not these feats per se but rather each and every relevant feat relating to swords. These feats are also highly desirable for defenders - pumping AC, honing the OA, delivering mighty blows. You can say all you like that they're not necessary (and I agree in a strict sense) but they remain highly desirable for certain archetypes which the paladin class encompasses.

Now you've got a straladin character build needing minimums of str16, con10, dex13, int8, wis12/14, cha 14/12. We're talking about boosting 4-5 stats, while the rogue & wizard can get away with 3. The 4E general case of mild MAD (which again, I agree with) gets pretty chronic when the character concept needs so many minimum stats. Anyway, as a human that leaves 3 points in the kitty and the +2 racial bonus to spend. However you look at that there is not much left over to customise the character so they're not so clone-like. If you swapped out swords for axes/hammers/etc you'd just rejig the points in dex elsewhere.

I think the paladin has been too MAD for a few too many editions now and it's long overdue this frustrating design philosophy ended.

Bravo, I agree 100%.

I too wanted to go for the concept,..oh well, heres to 5th Ed getting it right - 4th Ed pally = failure...sigh.

 

[Varis]

So, for my substantive contribution to the thread: The OP's contention is merely wrong. The Paladin can certainly be improved by the addition of Divine Power (just as the Fighter was improved by Martial Power), but (speaking from playtest experience) it is far too strong to say that the class as written has "failed" in any sense.

If its unplayable,..and trust me, i tried twice, then it's a failure. My view of a paladin is Strength based.

He isn't grooming himself in the mirror (see Shrek's Prince Charming ) or trying to beat the 10 Str Wizard in an arm wrestle because he too has the same Str, ao it should be a strong contest.

He's like Lancelot in Excalibur. His word is his bond, his faith is his shield and his courage is his sword,..that sort of stuff(fluff)...

He's cant compete with the fighters prowess with the sword, because he has to also recongise his duties to his god and beliefs - true. However, he DOES get holy assistance (as a champion of that divine entity) that brings him on par with the fighter,..as an equally capable 'defender'.

So far I only have personal experience with the Chr-Paladin,

This explains alot.

but from what I've seen the Paladin is highly survivable, a more-than competent Defender and a great "second line" Leader. That's different than the Fighter, but different is good. If they were the same there'd be no point in having different classes.

I Agree. Being a different defender can be good. Being an inferior defender, isn't.

The (Str based pally) pally can not effecively defend the party...except for providing healing. Frankly, if I wanted to contribute to the parties defence in this fashion, I would of played a priest.

From what I can tell the only main weakness of the Str-Paladin is less-than-optimal power selection;

Amen to that.

clearly something that can be improved with just a single supplement. That does not classify as "failure."

But it's clearly unacceptable that players should have to wait for another handbook just so that the pally can get up to par with the fighter,..and yes,..that is the yardstick.

 

[Bagpuss]

The (Str based pally) pally can not effecively defend the party...except for providing healing. Frankly, if I wanted to contribute to the parties defence in this fashion, I would of played a priest.

Our Strength based Paladin seems to do a reasonable job. With favouring Strength over Charisma, it means he is much more likely to hit with his Opportunity Attacks (than a Cha build), which discourages opponents from moving past him.

With Holy Strike he does significant damage since he is adding two attributes to damage (it's also a killer when we meet undead), and Valiant Strike rarely misses. His Staggering Smite can push back any enemy that gets too close.

 

[Varis]

Our Strength based Paladin seems to do a reasonable job. With favouring Strength over Charisma, it means he is much more likely to hit with his Opportunity Attacks (than a Cha build), which discourages opponents from moving past him.

With Holy Strike he does significant damage since he is adding two attributes to damage (it's also a killer when we meet undead), and Valiant Strike rarely misses. His Staggering Smite can push back any enemy that gets too close.

Is there a fighter in the party who's peerformance you can compare against?

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Is there a fighter in the party who's peerformance you can compare against?

Why? They're two different classes. I don't compare my Fighter against the Wizard, or the Cleric, or the Rogue, or the Ranger, etc... Granted, they're both Defenders, but they act in very different ways. My Fighter can't heal anyone, for example, or take hits for them, teleport to change positions, fire off ranged 10 implement powers, auto-damage enemies that ignore his mark or use Plate right out of the gate. They're different classes and shouldn't function the same, nor should they be compared.

The only question that should be asked is, "Does the Paladin contribute to the party". In the case of our STR Paladin that dumped WIS and keeps CHA as his secondary score while using a Greataxe, I would say "Yes". He's a GREAT secondary Defender that can do a lot of things that I can't. I'm stickier, but he can do so much more than that...