Is the paladin underpowered?

[NinjaPaladin]

One of my players really wants a holy mount (ideally a young metallic dragon), so I'm going to give him an animal companion at 5th level (trading out Bastion or his Cleric spell, since animal companions cost two talents). That still feels appropriately paladinic, and isn't really messing with the rules in any major way.

 

[pemerton]

while we're on the topic of Barbarians (as if this post weren't long enough), if anything they're the most underpowered class in the game. They hit like a truck, sure (when they're Raging), but they're intolerably squishy by RAW (at least IME). The simple house rule I've used is to boost their base HP up to 9 to make up for their extremely low AC.

I've just got the PDF, and was wondering about the barbarian being underpowered. Anyone else found this?

 

[Mallus]

Full disclosure: I haven't played 13th Age yet. I'm on my 2nd read-through.

The paladin doesn't strike me as underpowered. None of the classes do. Obviously that opinion might change after some actual play time...

I've read some of the concerns about certain classes being too simple mechanically. Viewed in context with the rest of the system and its fairly obvious --and explicitly stated-- design goals to KISS - Keep it Streamlined, Stupid-- I don't see it being an issue. Some classes are more complex than others. None of them approach the complexity of your average 4e or Pathfinder character.

The system does a good job of boiling down the classic D&D class options to short lists of important options. Add to that the fact there doesn't seem to be a downside to mixing-and-match class talents (the books mentions allowing a paladin to acquire a Ranger's animal companion, there are talents that give certain martial classes limited spell use). To my mind, this heads off a lot of the criticisms about 'boring' and 'under-performing' classes. If you think there's a problem, the system already gives you the tools to fix them.

Here's a quick take on a more interesting paladin: take Ranger's animal companion (panther, re-skin as unicorn) and Fey Queen's Enchantments instead of paladin Talents. Now you've got a pseudo-Herald of Valdmemar who can shoot lightening bolts and rides a unicorn with a wickedly-sharp horn good for foe-stabbing.

Add a little actual fiction/characterization to that and you have a perfectly viable PC. Note how easy that was!

 

[Eugee]

I definitely found my 13th Age Paladin to be simplistic. Not in a bad way--I actually expected it, because that's how I built him:

Human Paladin
18str, 16con, 8dex, 8int, 14wis, 14cha
Talents: Bastion, Implacable, Paladin's Challenge
Feats: Smite Evil (A), Implacable (A)
21 AC, 14 PD, 15 MD, +4hit w/ Smite, +1 Saves

He's tough as nails; I latch onto the biggest, meanest threat to the group, and trade punches with it like Dan Severn till it drops. I had the options to have more utility by taking Domains, Cleric Spells, or Lay on Hands, etc. I just wanted to have a wall of iron, and I've got one. I could have made a very durable Fighter too, but at 5th I plan to take cleric spells, adding another layer to my paladin.

Our first combat was exactly as I described--I rushed over to a goblin shaman and hit it, then proceeded to neuter it's effectiveness for the rest of the battle while the barbarian, ranger, and bard dealt with the rest of the goblins. What was the most awesome for me at the end? The only damage I took was from Bastion.

 

[Dungeoneer]

One of my players really wants a holy mount (ideally a young metallic dragon), so I'm going to give him an animal companion at 5th level (trading out Bastion or his Cleric spell, since animal companions cost two talents). That still feels appropriately paladinic, and isn't really messing with the rules in any major way.

The whole system is so amazingly hackable. I've never seen a game where I felt so free to screw around with the rules (if I wanted to).

Why is that? Is it just because the system is so simple? I would be much more reticent to change things in 3rd or 4th edition for fear my tweaks would have far-reaching effects that I hadn't thought of.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Why is that? Is it just because the system is so simple? I would be much more reticent to change things in 3rd or 4th edition for fear my tweaks would have far-reaching effects that I hadn't thought of.

I think it's because it's the neatest parts of 3E/4E together, even here: it's easy to play around with individual bits, since the classes and their rules are as modular as in 4E (i.e. there's no underlying interconnectedness, like with 3E spells, monsters, items or class features referencing other class features or spells). But unlike 4E, the modularity goes a step further (and at the same time a step towards 3E): there's no shared "skeleton" beyond hit points and basic attacks, so you don't "feel" like you're breaking the basic progression.

Finally, it takes a great thing about 4E and goes further: transparency. 4E let you know the maths, 13th Age lets you know the maths and what the designers thought about it in their sidebars. That gives you a very good understanding of the moving parts.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Finally, it takes a great thing about 4E and goes further: transparency. 4E let you know the maths, 13th Age lets you know the maths and what the designers thought about it in their sidebars. That gives you a very good understanding of the moving parts.

Agreed. I think the transparency of the game is a Very Good Thing. It's one of the things I really like about 13A. If nothing else, it should head off many of those RAW vs. RAI arguments at the pass.

 

[krakistophales]

There's no way the paladin can be seen as underpowered, if you play it right.

If you choose the cleric spell talent, divine domain, and lay on hands, even at 1st level you have a tank that can:

1. Deal extra damage with smite evil
2. heal with lay on hands
3. use savage cleric spells for divine spell damage
4. gain various effects from domains (like strength, etc.)

and at higher levels, the paladin can basically use massive damage spells, tank like hell, heal himself and the party, and even overworld travel. What more power do you want?

 

[doghead]

... I'd say that the problem is more that the class is boring as opposed to underpowered.

Boring? Seriously? The Paladin? I'm not particularly familiar with the 13th Age. Perhaps they have seriously reworked the basic concept (in which case, ignore me doing this). The Paladin may be different things to different people, but rarely is the experience of playing one boring. With the Paladin, nuance is important, and conflict, both internal and external, is almost inevitable.

They are a great character to play.

thotd

 

[Dungeoneer]

Boring? Seriously? The Paladin? I'm not particularly familiar with the 13th Age. Perhaps they have seriously reworked the basic concept (in which case, ignore me doing this). The Paladin may be different things to different people, but rarely is the experience of playing one boring. With the Paladin, nuance is important, and conflict, both internal and external, is almost inevitable.

They are a great character to play.

thotd

I think the discussion here is focused on combat versus general role-playing. Obviously there are few limits on what you can do in terms of RP.

The Paladin in 13A doesn't stray far from its D&D roots. Its combat options are just a little basic compared to some of the other classes in the game.