Any word yet on 3.5 Paladins?

Henry · May 12, 2003

Thanks, Olive! I appreciate it.

For all others: As we know, real-world religious discussion is against policy at ENWorld. Let's keep the topic as it directly pertains to "D&D Morality."

Daedrova, I'll explain a little better in an e-mail shortly. And Welcome to the boards!

FireLance · May 13, 2003

Daedrova, with respect to the terms "right" and "wrong", I was using them relative to an individual's code of behaviour, and not in an absolute sense. As such, one person's "right" could be another person's "wrong".

Anyway, good point about a Lawful person opposing the standards of a Chaotic society. Perhaps then, the essence of Lawfulness is a belief in the importance of having rules and following them. At a personal level, a Lawful person behaves according to the rules of the code that he follows. In addition, a Lawful person believes that society should be ordered, and the behaviour of individuals in society should be governed by rules. However, a lawful person may disagree with specific rules and may not feel obliged to follow them, e.g. a Lawful Good person in a Lawful Evil society ("There should be rules, just not these rules").

In contrast, a Chaotic person believes that rules are harmful. Although he may tend to behave in certain ways, he is not consistent. He may even believe that he should not be consistent. A Chaotic person also believes that society should not be ordered, and individuals should be left to do whatever they want. Of course, he also reserves the right to respond if someone does something he does not like ("You do what you want, I'll do what I want, and what I want to do right now is to stop you").

This is of course a simple abstraction, and cannot cover all situations, e.g. what is the alignment of someone who believes that society should be ordered, but does not act according to rules himself? Or perhaps there should be an "internal alignment" to dictate how a person acts, and an "external alignment" to indicate how a person thinks society should be?

FireLance · May 13, 2003

Anyway, back on the topic of Paladins in 3.5e. According to the thread on changes to Rangers and Barbarians, it appears that all they are getting is some changes to their spell list. Oh well, hopefully they will get a good 2nd-level spell, at least.

Daedrova · May 17, 2003

Yes, I am also hoping that there will be worth while changes to the spell list. Of the D&D campaigns I have played in so far, I have had the chance to play a Paladin once. I really like their abilities, and I must say that the character I played was extremely effective against evil, so I can't complain that not many other changes are being made. Although I'm still not sure if they will be changing the fact that they get no additional abilities other than remove disease at higher level... Aside from his spells, but by the time a Paladin does receive his spells, they don’t seem to be very affective. There were uses for them, occasionally, but more often than not I ended a day of adventure having only used cure spells. For that matter, I do not see why a level is skipped for the cure spells, going from cure light at 1st, to cure moderate only at 3rd. The weak NPC Paladin from the DMG has 76 hp by 11th level, which is the first level he can even cast it, provided he has the Wisdom for the bonus spell and chooses to memorize just that... 2d8+5.... at 11th level, once/day (while at that same level the cleric can now cast heal). That is about equal to one successful blow against him, by a large weapon (great sword etc.) or creature. Is there any reason to not give them the possibility to cast it as the second level spell that it is? He will still have to wait until 8th level. I think it would be nice to give them some of the "buff" spells as well though. That would be the greatest thing to do for their second level spells which, I must agree, are severely lacking.
By the way, from what was printed in the Dragon Magazine, I do really like what they have done with the Ranger and Barbarian. I wasn't sure if I was going to buy the 3.5 books when they come out, but if I see many more similar positive changes I will be much more inclined. Dragon did say that Paladins would also be seeing changes to their spell list, but there was of course nothing specifically mentioned.

Lalato · May 17, 2003

Chaotic Good Paladin Oath...

Though I'm sure I'll here arguments that Chaotic Good characters don't take oaths... Here's an Oath for a Chaotic Good or Neutral Good Paladin for a goddess of travel and mischief.

Be free-willed and benevolent. Help innocent and oppressed travelers at all costs, and humiliate those who prey upon them. Faith in goddess and men should come before fealty to empty thrones and cold crowns. Wisdom is found in the journey, not the destination.

Let me know what you think...

In order to put this back on track... I hope the 3.5e Paladin is given more fighting abilities/feats. Whether that's extra Smites or something else... I'm not sure. Altering the spell list would be a good thing, too.

--sam

reapersaurus · May 17, 2003

Daedrova said:
I really like their abilities, and I must say that the character I played was extremely effective against evil, so I can't complain that not many other changes are being made.

3E Paladins can NOT be extremely effective against evil, when they are compared to other classes.

The only abilities they have that are of specific use against evil are Detect Evil and Smite Evil.

Detect Evil is a 1st level spell - hardly extremely effective.
Smite Evil is for ONE attack, and it's hardly a huge effect.

I am so sick to death of Paladins being viewed as having all these powers which kick-butt against evil.
Sorry, but analyze their class abilities, instead of viewing them thru the glasses of the character archetype:

It would be my conclusion that the 3E Paladin's abilities woefully under-equip him with the power to accomplish his sworn task: battle Evil.

Currently, he's just a fighter with flavor, lots of restrictions to his behavior, and fairly weak abilities that (past level 2) can all be better accomplished by using a class other than Paladin.

shilsen and Green Knight - nice to see your wise words in another Paladin thread.

no offense intended to anyone in this thread, but anyone who doesn't see VAST areas for improvement in the Paladin class for 3.5E simply hasn't analyzed the Paladin class abilities thoroughly.
I HAVE.... for over 3 years now.

But really, my approach is that all the fighter clases are woefully underpowered.
Combat abilities (other than sneak attack) are so eclipsed by magic that any analysis of class abilities becomes fairly absurd when you consider how much more the magic makes the fighter-types effective much moreso than the class abilities.

edit: this whole post is simply trying to relate my personal opinion of paladins and class abilities in D&D - no slights are intended, nor do I think my way is the only way, nor do I think that everyone else is stupid.
In other words, it's an opinion.

John Crichton · May 17, 2003

reapersaurus said:
3E Paladins can NOT be extremely effective against evil, when they are compared to other classes.

The only abilities they have that are of specific use against evil are Detect Evil and Smite Evil.

Detect Evil is a 1st level spell - hardly extremely effective.
Smite Evil is for ONE attack, and it's hardly a huge effect.

Can't forget turn undead (which isn't evil specific but is very useful against evil), lay on hands which can be used as an attack and the Aura of Courage (which again, isn't evil specific but many evil foes have fear attacks). And they do have some helpful spells that are evil-centric-ish. That said, I do think the class needs more than it currently has, especially at higher levels. I think either more smites or a few extra feats would be really nice.

Daedrova · May 19, 2003

Lalato, I don't really see a problem with a chaotic character taking an oath. Following one guidline doesn't really imply they seek to uphold the tenants of order. However, the oath you described looks like it would belong to something like a "Holy Liberator." Paladin has always (seemingly) implied an enforcement of order along with his quest against evil.

As far as Paladins not being effective, I can see why one could make that observation... However, saying "3E Paladins can be not extremely effective against evil, when they are compared to other classes," would be more accurate than "3E Paladins can NOT be extremely effective against evil, when they are compared to other classes."
Of course, his effectiveness will depend heavily on the type of game he is in. How many encounters a day will adventurers have to overcome, what are the starting ability scores, how prevalent is evil in the campaign.
As far as combat is concerned, reapersaurus was probably correct that detect evil is not very effective. However, it does allow a Paladin to locate evil at any time (corrupt politician, disguised villain... use your imagination). At the end of a long day fighting generic evil characters, ::shrug:: some other stacked melee character may come out on top, but this simply was not the case in the campaign I played in.
The paladins innate abilities give him very good defenses, and he does have spells that will "bless" weapons (great against demons), and I found the holy sword spell to be very useful. Perhaps the campaign just happened to highlight all of his class advantages repeatedly. Reviewing the classes, it is probably accurate to say that it would help balance the class overall to give them more (feats, smites, etc.). Remember, there are feats available that allow them to use those many turn undead attempts into other useful abilities.
It would be nice to see them get something more helpful than just "remove disease" at higher levels.

I can’t say I entirely agree that melee characters are overshadowed in power by spell casters. If you do not feel that they should have to use magic items, then I would understand why you would say that (maybe they are just a bit too dependent on magic items at higher and higher levels)… but the fact that magic exists in the game should justify that… according to the system philosophy. I have heard many people complain about the dependency the characters have on magic items in the game. That is probably just a matter of preference.
When I play spell casters, I always think that they are completely underpowered, what with opponents persistently making saving throws, the limited number of spells per day, being defeated by SR, and having nothing else supporting the class (for arcane casters…clerics have no complaints in any department…). That generally changes after the caster hits level 10, when he still has a few spells left after the first couple of encounters, and he can do good amounts of damage quickly. But that has always been the D&D flavored tradeoff for melee characters vs. casters.