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

[kitcik]

Dandu, I bow to you as my superior in rules knowedge, but it seems to me this class feature makes the Belt of Battle look like a mouse's drawstring.

Belt of Battle gives 3 charges per day (1 = move, 2 = std, 3 = full)

Look again at the above - at 20th level you would get 20 action points per encounter.

 

[Dandu]

Seems about right considering that Time Stop exists.

 

[airwalkrr]

OP, let me chime in here to be the voice of reason in a discussion of wildly varying opinions. There is nothing wrong with the paladin as presented in the standard 3.5 Player's Handbook. It works very well with the other 10 classes presented in the book.

If you run a simple 3.5 campaign and your DM just uses the Player's Handbook and doesn't allow prestige classes, the paladin is a great option unless all of your opponents are neutral.

If you run a more permissive 3.5 campaign and your DM lets you use feats and prestige classes from some official D&D sources, the paladin is STILL a great option unless all of your opponents are neutral. Plenty of options from those official D&D sources give the paladin a significant power boost.

If you run a very permissive 3.5 campaign and your DM allows just about everything from any source, the paladin is as good an option as any. There is some wacky stuff out there.

Oh, and if your DM lets you use your mount even half the time... yee gods.

Some people might think the paladin could use some improvement. I think the general perception among those who find the paladin weak is that with the plethora of options available out there, such as newer base classes with a "one level-one new power" philosophy, the wide variety of feats, and the great number of spells, a simple paladin built only using the 3.5 rules is gonna look a little unimpressive. That may be true. But this whole discussion is relative to the campaign being played. I doubt a DM who lets a wizard use the Spell Compendium, Complete Arcane, and Complete Mage is going to deny a paladin the ability to use Complete Warrior, Complete Divine, and Complete Champion. So the paladin is fine. Maybe you could tweak it a bit. Add some flavor to the "dead" levels. But it doesn't need a massive overhaul.

Neither does the monk for that matter.

[sblock=Tangent on Linear Versus Exponential Power]As RPGs have matured, there has been a marked increase in the number of gaming companies out there who try to convince you that every character must be "balanced." Unfortunately, that often means games producing characters that are not so much balanced as they are mere reflections of each other in different skins. That's why you have 4th edition D&D where players can walk around as Dragonborn Warlords or Tiefling Warlocks but when you get down to the fundamental mechanics of the game there are more similarities between characters than there are differences.

In older RPGs like the original version of D&D there were some stark contrasts to the way characters like wizards and paladins (who were a sub-class of the fighter) were played. Wizards started off relatively weak on paper with abysmal hit points, terrible bonuses to hit, and only one lowly spell per day. Meanwhile the fighter began with a substantial number of hit points (he couldn't be killed by a cat quite so easily), the ability to wear armor and wield impressive weapons. As these characters leveled up the fighter simply earned more of the same, more hit points, more weapons, more to-hit bonuses. The wizard (or magic-user, as it were) gained substantial jumps in power every few levels however. They continued to gain a smaller number of hit points and smaller bonuses to hit relative to the fighter, but every time they earned access to a new level of spells, they obtained the ability to re-shape the world in a bigger and more powerful way.

The good DM was supposed to balance this out in play to keep both types of characters interesting at all levels. Perhaps at low levels the wizard found a wand of fireballs with enough charges to get him through to mid-levels. Meanwhile after the fighter broke into higher levels he earned access to a keep and an army of his own so that he obtained real political power and could change the world in his own way. Along with that he probably acquired more than a few magic items with powers not unlike spells that the wizard was already casting. Both types of characters were played very differently but were balanced out by the DM and the campaign.

Apparently enough of the modern game designers suffered through bad DMs in the 70s and 80s who let the wizards suck at low level while racking up all the interesting power at higher levels that they decided that the DM shouldn't have quite so much power over the players. They wrote new games in which "balance" was written into the system such that even a bad DM couldn't screw it up... in theory.

This is an old discussion. And modern systems can't make up for a bad DM any day. I'd rather play 1st edition with a good DM than play 4th with a mediocre one. Even though I play 4th edition now (rather reluctantly; it's just easy to find players because it is "the current edition"), I still think there has been a consistent attempt by game designers to wrest control over games from the DM. On a certain level, I understand that players have certain expectations. But I disagree about the limit of those expectations. It is the job of the DM to make the game fun. It's a hard job. Not everyone can do it, and not everyone should.[/sblock]

 

[Dandu]

In core, paladins and monks tend to have issues dealing with CR-appropriate challenges. Their contributions towards monsters tend to be less than what would be achieved with other classes. This hinders their ability to work well with other classes as they cannot pull their weight.

One problem the monk and paladin share is MAD; multiple attribute dependency. Whereas a Barbarian can dump all stats except for Strength and Constitution, a Paladin has to allocate his best scores in Strength, Constitution, Wisdom, and Charisma, unless he does not want to make use of his Paladin abilities. Similarly, a Monk requires Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, otherwise he will have low AC and/or not hit and/or not deal enough damage and/or have insufficient HP.

So when it comes to hurting people, a Paladin or Monk is going to do less damage than a Barbarian. Is this ok? Depends on if they do anything to make up for it. The Monk, going by his class features... doesn't. Immunity to poisons and diseases is ho-hum considering that most melee classes have good fortitude saves (and high Con), the ability to semi-duplicate a first level spell just isn't impressive. You can heal yourself a certain amount, but healing wands are cheap. Spell Resistance huts you as much as it helps because buffing and healing spells from your allies are also subject to it. Evasion and Improved Evasion aren't bad; along with high saves, they help you survive, but simply surviving isn't enough. You have to actually be a threat (deal damage, or do nasty things to people) or else the enemy ignores you, kills the other party members, then swings back to finish you off.

Oh, and a monk gets some sneaky skills. Doesn't have enough skill points to make full use of his skill list (Hide, Move Silently, Spot and Listen use up 4 skill points already. Tumble is pretty important, Jump is useful, Sense Motive could come in handy, and Diplomacy's always good) unless you put something positive in Int... in addition to everything else.

Paladins get full BAB and can wear armor so that eliminates some of the Monk's problems. You don't have much skills to speak of, so let's hope your in combat abilities are up to snuff. Smite Evil can only be used a very limited amount per day, so its impact is just not that great. Lay on Hands provides healing, but you either have to have high Cha (and lower physical stats) and/or be a high level Paladin to get a lot of healing out of it, while a wand of CLW only costs 750 gp and heals 50d8+50 hit points. Divine Grace increases saves, but again you need good Cha to get a lot out of it. Turn undead is rarely going to be good enough to affect CR appropriate undead. A special mount can come in handy, but using a horse in a dungeon seems somewhat unfeasible. It doesn't fly either, so at level 10 or above when there are many flying enemies you might as well not even bother.

If you want, we can present generic, moderately optimized, core only builds and compare them. Would you kindly roll up a paladin? I'll provide the spellcasters. Level 13 should be good.

 

[airwalkrr]

In core, paladins and monks tend to have issues dealing with CR-appropriate challenges. Their contributions towards monsters tend to be less than what would be achieved with other classes. This hinders their ability to work well with other classes as they cannot pull their weight. This is why people think they work poorly.

If you want, we can present generic, moderately optimized, core only builds and compare them. Would you kindly roll up a paladin? I'll provide the spellcasters. Level 13 should be good.

Comparing paladins to spellcasters isn't reasonable. They fill different roles in the party. Compare paladins to fighters and barbarians. Compare the monk to a ranger. I think they stack up fairly well at all levels. And I have played 3.5 extensively with different groups in organized play and outside organized play with house rules and even without house rules at all levels, and I do mean literally all levels, inclusive, even epic, and I can say with certainty that there is acceptable parity between these classes and the roles they are expected to fill.

You can crunch numbers and maybe a paladin and monk come up a few points behind on things like to-hit and damage using the same point buy as a fighter or barbarian, but numbers isn't the whole part of the game. Preparing for encounters is a big part of it too. And monks and paladins offer unique solutions that don't require dedicated spellcaster resources or magic items to solve.

Monks serve as invaluable scouts for parties who are willing to wait. They are also nigh-indestructable at higher levels and capable of moving swiftly through the battlefield towards more fragile but deadly threats like spellcasters and neutralizing them with grapple, disarm, trip, and stun, once again without requiring dedicated spellcaster resources. They can get to places other party members can't in a pinch with excellent physical skills or abundant step in a pinch, once again without requiring dedicated spellcaster resources.

Paladins can tell you whether something is evil or not with a simple glance. No need to wave your arms about and murmur magical musings. They do it at will. They do it at 1st-level. It's indispensable in a number of campaigns and more discreet than whipping out an eternal wand of detect evil. Higher level opponents having undetectable alignment? Well by that time paladins are getting spells like zone of truth and eventually discern lies. They're immune to disease. They have incredible saves. They are bastions of defense on the front lines who can dish it out when its on the line and heal in a pinch too. And when atop their mounts they are more ferocious than any other mounted character due to all the incredible bonuses their mount gets.

Are there trade-offs for more direct damage routes like the fighter or barbarian? Sure. Whether those trade-offs are worth it depends on the campaign and how creative the DM is with encounters. If every monster is simply a mound of hit points waiting to be chiseled away, then take the fighter or barbarian. But if the DM likes to use interesting terrain, cunning foes, or encounters that don't involve monsters who just want to bash your head open, you might find the abilities of the paladin and monk are far more effective than the more straightforward tactics of the fighter or barbarian.

Edit: And since you mentioned flying threats in your edited post, I will note that many GMs allow a paladin to get a griffon or hippogriff fairly early if he wants it. And if he doesn't, there are plenty of ways to make a horse fly.

 

[Dandu]

Comparing paladins to spellcasters isn't reasonable. They fill different roles in the party. Compare paladins to fighters and barbarians. Compare the monk to a ranger. I think they stack up fairly well at all levels.

I understand. Let us compare melee to melee. Paladins are roughly on the level of the fighter in core (tier 5). Lower than the Barbarian (tier 4) due to the barbarian's superiority at beating people up and taking their stuff.

Monk does not compare favorably to the ranger. Rangers get full BAB, more skill points, more skills, and better skills. That translates to better offense and out of combat utility. Rangers have worse defense, but as I have previously noted, defense is only good if you can make an impact.

And I have played 3.5 extensively with different groups in organized play and outside organized play with house rules and even without house rules at all levels, and I do mean literally all levels, inclusive, even epic, and I can say with certainty that there is acceptable parity between these classes and the roles they are expected to fill.

What a coincidence! So have I! I also hang out with people who play the game a lot and crunch numbers, and yet we have much different conclusions.

Monks serve as invaluable scouts for parties who are willing to wait.

Without search, disable device, open lock, or trapfinding, they leave much to be desired compared to the rogue. Springing traps to disarm them is a poor idea as some traps are alarms, and the whole point of scouting is to covertly obtain intelligence about obstacles ahead.

They are also nigh-indestructable at higher levels and capable of moving swiftly through the battlefield towards more fragile but deadly threats like spellcasters and neutralizing them with grapple, disarm, trip, and stun, once again without requiring dedicated spellcaster resources.

With all due respect, a high level monk is a joke when it comes to magekilling. If you doubt me, a demonstration can be arranged.

tl;dr Conjuration makes people with spell resistance very unhappy.

They can get to places other party members can't in a pinch with excellent physical skills or abundant step in a pinch, once again without requiring dedicated spellcaster resources.

One question springs to mind: how are you getting excellent physical skills while also being a scout? Monks get 4+Int mod skill points. Hide, Move Silently, Spot, and Listen are already four skills that you're scouting monk has. How does he fit in "excellent physical skills", which I take to mean Balance, Jump, Cllimb, Swim, and Tumble, without having a very high Int?

And what effect would that have on his other ability scores? Can't stun a mage without high Wis for that Stunning Fist save, and you can't hit him without either good Str or Dex.

Incidentally, if you're going to compare Monks to Rangers, an Horizon Walker can get Dimension Door with a CL of his character level (not half his level like that of the Monk) every 1d4 rounds at character level 11, one level before the Monk gets his.

Not that Dimension Door is a bad ability, it's a very good one. It's just not that good. Doesn't make up for not being able to stand up in melee or be a scout. Monks don't get much that synergies with it; they're kinda unfocused, with abilities that sound cool and are sometimes useful, but which don't work together as well as those of other classes. (Offhand, Barbarians.)

Paladins can tell you whether something is evil or not with a simple glance. No need to wave your arms about and murmur magical musings.

Alternatively, you could just have the Rogue pull a Sense Motive.

Higher level opponents having undetectable alignment? Well by that time paladins are getting spells like zone of truth and eventually discern lies.

What's the save on those abilities by the time you get them? I bet it's so high that the evil preist who casts Undetectable Alignment on himself will surely fail that will save. I'm sure it'll just burst through spell resistance as well, what with casting it at a CL of half the paladin's level.

They're immune to disease.

Everyone with a good fortitude save is. Moving on.

They have incredible saves.

Misleading. Paladins have good Fort and poor Will and Ref. They get Cha to saves... but that only makes the saves incredible if you have high Cha. Which means you have lower Str and Con. Which means you're not really stopping the hydra from rampaging across the town and killing your party members as effectively as you should be.

They are bastions of defense on the front lines who can dish it out when its on the line and heal in a pinch too.

In which case, you're decidedly inferior to a melee Cleric or Druid, which are melee classes that can dish it out, and take it even better than the paladin. Which would make your assertion that they work well with all classes incorrect.

And when atop their mounts they are more ferocious than any other mounted character due to all the incredible bonuses their mount gets.

Wouldn't a mounted druid be more effective since his animal companion is more powerful, he gets the same number of feats, and can have higher strength due to Wildshape, or at least allocating a lot to Strength?

Are there trade-offs for more direct damage routes like the fighter or barbarian? Sure. Whether those trade-offs are worth it depends on the campaign and how creative the DM is with encounters. If every monster is simply a mound of hit points waiting to be chiseled away, then take the fighter or barbarian. But if the DM likes to use interesting terrain, cunning foes, or encounters that don't involve monsters who just want to bash your head open, you might find the abilities of the paladin and monk are far more effective than the more straightforward tactics of the fighter or barbarian.

I could use an example. Would you kindly humor me?

Let's take a cunning enemy in difficult terrain. It's raining. You're in a city. There's an Ice Devil reining havoc upon civilian crowds from atop a building. What does a Paladin or Monk contribute over a Barbarian when the level 13 party goes to stop it?

Edit: And since you mentioned flying threats in your edited post, I will note that many GMs allow a paladin to get a griffon or hippogriff fairly early if he wants it. And if he doesn't, there are plenty of ways to make a horse fly.

If you're using a griffon or hppogriff, you're not using your mount. One of your major points about how the paladin is worth it is the fact that they get an incredible mount... which is decidedly less incredible than you describe as the bonuses do not include flight.

As for making a horse fly, sure you can... with a 54,000 gp magical item.

 

[airwalkrr]

Dandu you obviously know more about this than anyone else so I declare you the winner of the thread. Congratulations!

edit: my ragequit had to do with the whole state of EN World stability at the time. when it took 30+ seconds for a page to load and I was updating several threads multiple times a day it added up to a lot of sitting and waiting.

 

[DumbPaladin]

[MENTION=12460]airwalkrr[/MENTION], rage is not necessary. Did you forget the mantra "obvious troll is obvious" ? It applies here.

Paladin in 3.5 really does need some help ... but every DM is going to have different opinions about how MUCH help it needs.

For certain, the paladin level should = caster level. Why hobble the few spell abilities this class gets?

I agree with whomever it was that said on page ONE that the Pathfinder version is really awesomely done, fun to play, and completely useful.

Seems easiest to just borrow that.

 

[kitcik]

Melee classes are underpowered in comparison to full casters.

Paladins (and fighters and monks, among others) are underpowered in comparison to good melee classes.

If your Paladin is not vastly underpowered, such that he feels like he is under-contributing to the party, compared to the casters in your group, that says something about the casters in your group. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing - if it works for you, everyone is happy, and the DM scales down challenges appropriately, a balanced party including Paladins is a good thing.

Just to show that I am not being sarcastic about that, let me say that my current party's power rankings are as follows:
1) 7th level monk
2) 6th level TWF ranger
3) 7th level bard
4) 4th level ranger / 2nd level wizard
5) 7th level druid

Clearly, there is some odd "optimization" going on, but it works for us & we are all enjoying the campaign.

 

[Icyshadowlord]

@airwalkrr, rage is not necessary. Did you forget the mantra "obvious troll is obvious" ? It applies here.

Paladin in 3.5 really does need some help ... but every DM is going to have different opinions about how MUCH help it needs.

For certain, the paladin level should = caster level. Why hobble the few spell abilities this class gets?

I agree with whomever it was that said on page ONE that the Pathfinder version is really awesomely done, fun to play, and completely useful.

Seems easiest to just borrow that.

I would not say that Dandu was really trolling. I find most, if not all of his points to be either valid or at least making sense in context (though of course, airwalkrr's points and arguments are of equal value here as well). To me it seemed more like a debate over Paladin ability than an argument.

In either case, sure, the Pathfinder Paladin IS better, but I already stated a problem with that earlier: The player group I am in knows about both 3.5 AND Pathfinder, and I do not want to have my purely 3.5 game suddenly shifting to a Pathfinder one stat-wise just because I asked for a different set of stats for my Paladin.

(It happened once in a group I no longer associate with: He switched rulebooks in the middle of a campaign)

In any case, I have seen a lot of helpful advice, but I still have no idea how to make a proper conclusion, neither as a player nor as a DM. I have seen people talking about Tome classes (I have no idea what they mean by these tomes of theirs, but for example, I saw something called the Kantian Paladin mentioned once) and about Tome of Battle (a personal favourite of mine)

A part of me is just telling to give Paladin more uses of Smite Evil, some extra feats and more spellcasting, while another part of me just wants to slap some maneuvers and stances on them to make it more similar to Crusader (who just doesn't replace Paladins in my eyes for some reason)