Is The Paladin Weak?

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Ok, so 3.5 is out. I have looked over the new Paladin, and yeah, I know that the Paladin is essential and an icon and all, but why haven't they changed the Paladin to being able to fulfill the basic role that inspired the class to begin with?

What am I talking about? You might wonder, but I would direct you to the fact that the Paladin only gets 7--yes, 7--feats over his 20-level base career. Seven feats to cover the following, in my mind, as essential to the Paladin:

(1) Mounted Combat
(2) Ride-By-Attack
(3) Trample
(4) Spirited Charge
(5) Leadership
(6) Power Attack
(7) Cleave
(8) Great Cleave
(9) Combat Reflexes
(10) Improved Shield Bash

Now, I think that the above are base-line essential, with the following being strong contenders as well:

(11) Weapon Focus: Longsword
(12) Weapon Focus: Battleaxe
(13) Weapon Focus: Heavy Lance
(14) Weapon Focus: Greatsword
(15) Weapon Focus: Choice of one: (Light Flail, Light Mace, or Heavy Pick)

Now, as the careful student of history might note, all of the above weapons mentioned were weapons that great knights of the kingdom were considered experts in, and masters of war.

The Paladin is akin to our own real-world Knights-Templar, and thus it isn't inconsistent in viewing the Paladin as being an excellent knight and warrior. Indeed, the Paladin has many other interesting and useful powers and abilities, but it seems that in possessing the essential feats necessary for a bold knight going on crusade to fight the hordes of monsters that threaten the kingdom, the Paladin takes a rather uninspiring position of being a mediocre warrior when whether on the battlefield or on the tournament field, a well-prepared and experienced Fighter will possess far superior "knightly" skills and feats.

Certainly, a multiclass option exists, but then that also diminishes the base Paladin abilities as well. That option does indeed work, but it takes far longer, and at least to me, seems a bit incongreous in order to have a Paladin possess the essential feats and skills of a crusading knight. Using this option, it could be seen that a character would have to begin play as a Fighter, and advance until achieving 14th level as a Fighter before switching over to being a Paladin. This would gain the character the 15 feats outlined above, as the Paladin advanced to 20th level, making the character a 34th level character.

This seems far to much in my mind in order to have the aforementioned "Paladin". It just seems a lot, and the Paladin seems rather, despite all the bells and whistles, something of a let down when it comes to the essential feats and skills of a crusading warrior.

It makes me wish that they designed the Paladin to have a bonus feat at every two levels so that the character could then be as a Paladin alone--a complete crusading warrior. Such would provide the Paladin with 1 character feat, 6 general feats, and 10 bonus feats--enough to embrace the above feats for example, and have two feats left over in which to augment the Paladin character's social abilities, or perhaps some other unusual feat or ability.

What do you think about that? Of course, I realise that doing so would "invade" the Fighter's domain, but it seems like the other requirments of the Paladin Class would keep all but the most dedicated player from wanting to play one, and in the bargain, because Paladins are so challenging to play, there seems to be some way for additional benefits for all the sacrifices. Paladins have a big role to play, with far more demands than the typical Fighter must deal with, so the extra feats may not be such a problem. Just some thoughts though!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think it's a mistake to assume that paladins are akin to real-world knights. After all, knights--even in mythology--rarely wielded magic.

If you're looking to create a "traditional" knight, I'd say go with a lawful good fighter who follows a code of chivalry.

Paladins are knightly, certainly, but given their various divine/mystical abilities, they shouldn't be as good as fighters in toe-to-toe (or hoof-to-hoof) combat.

Plus there's the fact that while the horse-riding, plate-clad paladin may be the most common view of 'em, it's hardly the only one. Your baseline feats are only "baseline" if you are going for the knight archetype. Paladins fill it well, but they aren't limited to it, certainly.

 

[ForceUser]

See, this is the great thing about 3rd edition. If you want to play a Paladin with more feats you can multiclass him with a Fighter. Viola - your mounted psuedo-historical knight.

 

[DerianCypher]

but paladins can't multiclass

 

[Someone]

I fail to see how all those feats are part of the concept of what´s a paladin. Maybe Leadership, but that´s all. A 20th level paladin IS a master in combat: he has +20 BAB!

 

[ForceUser]

but paladins can't multiclass

Sure they can. They just can't go back to Paladin once they leave it. Instead of going Pal/Ftr/Pal/Ftr, you have to go Pal/Pal/Ftr/Ftr+. No biggie.

 

[reapersaurus]

See, here is where we completely agree in playing styles, SHARK.
(you never thought there'd be this arena, did you? )

It is my STRONG conclusion that, like you, a reasonably strong, heroic-level fighter-type is not aptly emulated in D&D (3e or 3.5E).

It's the sheer lack of feats that make it impossible to properly model a skilled combatants abilities.

[my approach] I see a combat specialist as someone who is lethal in combat, knowing a vast array of maneuvers, and specialities, not just one (or maybe 2 if you're a straight fighter class). You shouldn't be restricted to being effective with only one weapon or maneuver, due to feat rarity. Most people say "oh, if there were more feats, than PC's would start to look the same, taking all the same good feats!" That's a bunch of hooey, IMO, and unsupported by either experience or rational thought.

A Paladin has so few feats to properly fight, it's a tragedy of literary proportions.
I've never understood why everybody "bought' the 3E feat mechanic - they are wholly uninspired, and weak on the most part. A +1 to attack rolls? Are you kidding me? And that's the bonus I get as a combat fighter-type? How is a 5% chance better to hit an actual representation of 3 levels of a combat-classes superiority in combat over a non-combat class?

But since the designers of D&D are strightjacketed (apparently ) into having a Fighter only get 1 feat per 2 levels, that kind of puts a glass ceiling on all the other classes.
There's simply NO WAY to pump up the other fighting classes' combat abilities without weakening the Fighter class in comparison.

The only solution I can see is to bump up the feats acquisition for all, and screw the Fighter : one feat every 2 levels for everyone.
This would grant the flexibility to at least attempt to make a somewhat well-rounded, skilled deadly combatant.

And you probably shouldn't use a 20-level outline as the default comparison for characters, since I would bet that the average campaign doesn't go above level 12 (yours excuded, natch)
I'd hope that by level 10, a combat-centered character would have enough feats to properly show his or her deadliness with multiple combat styles. [/my approach]

 

[William Ronald]

SHARK,

A possible solution for 4th edition would be to allow some of the classes that might need more feats than they do currently (if playing the game reveals this to be the case) at a rate similar to wizards or at least slower than fighters. The feat progression for fighters is truly their distinguishing characteristic.

Currently, I think a multi-classed fighter/paladin is a reasonable solution to create an equivalent of a medieval Knights-Templar.

Here are some other ideas for paladins, if you feel they are underpowered.

If paladins are associated with a particular deity, maybe they are skilled in the use of a weapon associated with their god. This is essentially a virtual feat.

Other options would be to grant them bonuses to certain skills.

For myself, I am fairly comfortable with paladins as they are written. However, my group has not made much use of them.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

I don't think the paladin is weak, but a lot of his powers are a little ho-hum. Curing disease is miraculous and all, but what's the point of a power that can only be used at most a few times per week? If a plague swept the city, you wouldn't ask the paladin for help, you'd ask the cleric who can prepare cure disease 4 or 5 times per day. I can't think of any other ability in the game that's only useable a certain number of times per week.

I disagree that a paladin needs ALL those feats. While it's true that historical knights trained with a wide variety of weapons, I doubt they had weapon focus in all of them. Remember that a paladin's martial weapon proficiency already puts him at an effective +4 to attacks over the common man. Add in a high attack bonus and you end up with someone who is a master of several weapons.

And yes, all ten of your other feats make good choices for paladins. I could probably find another thirty choices that would make sense if I dug through all my books. You'll notice that none of the feats are really *essential.* They just provide a bit more direction and focus to the character. Someone without 5 or 6 different mounted fighting feats can still fight while mounted, just not as well as those who have chosen to dedicate themselves in that direction.

 

[The Blue Elf]

Its not skill its how they act acording to there Code, they can't run away in Battle even if they are at low hit points they even have to charge into battle not matter how the odds are aganst them.