D&D 3E/3.5 (3.5) The Paladin Sucks? Also, how to fix it?

What is this feel?

I guess I would say it's the feel of playing that holy warrior who happens to be a paragon of virtue and righteousness. I get that only with Lawful Good Crusaders, and even then the fact that they CAN be evil knocks it all down to "Generic Zealot" class instead of "Badass Holy Warrior". But yeah, it's mostly just a "feel" kind of thing that some will relate to and others won't.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Okay, I couldn't help but notice this being said here and there while I surfed around the internet, but I can't keep it out of my head now that I have seen it: The paladins in 3.5 suck, they say.
And now I ask: How much do they exactly suck?

There are several issues here and I'll try to address as many as I can think of.

The first problem is that 3.5 and to a lesser extent 3.0 tended to make almost everything suck compared to playing some sort of optimized build and/or full spellcaster especially if you played at high levels. So yes, the paladin in 3.5 does suck but so does most things in 3.5 that comes out of core without lots of supplemental material except for some well run and optimized versions of full spellcasters (which are comparitively simple to build). I mean, if you look at how the char op people tier the basic classes, most things end up 'sucking' and the things that don't suck are assuming you 'build them right'. This is actually 3.X's problem and not a problem with the paladin specifically.

The second problem is that the Paladin pretty much sucked from the beginning. The Paladin was basically a fighter without feats that relied on self-buffing to make up the difference. But the Fighter was just a better fighter than the Paladin, and the Cleric just did self-buffing yourself into a fighter better. The Paladin was a heavily front loaded class that was quite strong at 1st or 2nd level, but past about level 3 it was slipping versus just about everything.

The third problem is that even if we overlook its marginal power level, the Paladin is still a major failure as a base class. This can be witnessed by the massive number of alternate and variant paladins that have been created over the years - and not just for 3e. The problem with the Paladin is that it lacked the ability to customize it the way you could easily customize a Cleric or a Wizard. What if you wanted to play a Paladin of a CG diety? Or a CE one? What if you wanted a play a Paladin whose patron diety had different primary interests than a sterotypical LG god - like a god of magic, or death, or creation, or music or something? There were a lot of attempts to kludge a fix with prestige classes or alternate base classes, but most of these could never avoid looking like ugly kludges (witness Blackguard, etc.)

Also, how do you guys think of fixing it?

Well, I do this: The Champion.

However, that's probably only satisfying to you if you play in a game which has the same basic assumptions as mine; otherwise, you are still dealing with a class that doesn't quite cut it against full spellcasters, ToB classes, and various PrC's and optimized builds available in 3.5.

Otherwise, you'll need to go with something like the Crusader. Of course the problem here is that regardless of whether you go with a solution like mine or a solution like the Crusader, you are still going to have the problem that the power levels of the classes are spread across 5 or more tiers and just fiddling with one won't really solve the problem.
 

I guess I would say it's the feel of playing that holy warrior who happens to be a paragon of virtue and righteousness. I get that only with Lawful Good Crusaders, and even then the fact that they CAN be evil knocks it all down to "Generic Zealot" class instead of "Badass Holy Warrior". But yeah, it's mostly just a "feel" kind of thing that some will relate to and others won't.

Here you are mistaken.

It is more realistic not to have alignment restrictions for playing paladins.

History shows this to be true, there have been countless groups who fought under the banner of righteousness and goodness and yet were evil.

Such as the Inquisition or in the case of clerics, corrupt priests.

So an alignment restriction is unrealistic.
 

I do know of the lack of realism that comes with the alignment system, but even a friend of mine with a similar view says this: "Paladin just IS Lawful Good. It's just how they were made to be played, and even though I would normally not use alignments, I would not change that part of the Paladin class. They are living embodiments of a Knight in Shining Armor and a Warrior of Virtue, Good and Righteousness."
 

I do know of the lack of realism that comes with the alignment system, but even a friend of mine with a similar view says this: "Paladin just IS Lawful Good. It's just how they were made to be played, and even though I would normally not use alignments, I would not change that part of the Paladin class. They are living embodiments of a Knight in Shining Armor and a Warrior of Virtue, Good and Righteousness."

I thing you are confusing is and ought.

They are and they should be "living embodiments of a Knight in Shining Armor and Warror of Virtue, Good and Righteousness" are two different things.

There are many things which should be but which are not, that is part of reality.
 

I think you are also de-railing from the point of this thread. So, could you please address the actual issue instead of starting an arugment about adding realism to a game where magic and such things like the Mind Flayer actually exist? Because really, we discussed the Paladin stat-wise, not from the perspective of how the alignment of a Paladin and the reflection of alignments compared to real life are unrealistic.
 
Last edited:

You are the one who rejected a perfectly good suggestion by Dandu to replace the paladin with the crusader over a stupid idea that paladins have to be good and I am arguing that it is unrealistic to require that paladins be good.
 


Okay, now you (Alexander123) are just jumping into pointing fingers. And I did not dismiss Dandu's idea. Actually, I like it the most out of all these ideas. And after some thinking, I might as well go with it. And either way, I will say this again...THE FACT THAT WHETHER THINGS IN D&D ARE REALISTIC OR NOT IS COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT.

I am not going to continue this pointless de-railing any more. Now, if people wanna go ahead and give their views on how THEY would fix the Paladin stat-wise, feel free to do so. I already have gotten answers, but I also wanna see some perspectives and discussions THAT STAY ON THE POINT.
 

Remove ads

Top