Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 5503959" data-attributes="member: 12460">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.</blockquote>

Verification