Is The Paladin Weak?

[William Ronald]

Anubis the Doomseer wrote:

Parzival is sort of a splice-in, not native to Arthurian myths. He's more general (French? Italian?) variation on the christian ideal knight.

I thought Percival was a reinvention of the Welsh Peredur, who is featured in one of the tales of the Mabonogion. (The Mabonogion is a great source for ideas ... and names.)

 

[reapersaurus]

As far as being a power gamer, some of us balance things a different way. I am not into magic items. I think characters should have a few unique, quality magic items that help them, but I don't think they should receive a storehouse of saleable magic items that they are constantly upgrading.

I'd like to get back to Gargoyle James' points about his preference that the heroism of a character come from within (paraphrased).

I totally agree with this approach, and loathe the magic power-ups necessary to make a heroic (i.e. effective) combatant in 3E.

I wish that D&D someday could be made to be about the hero, not what loot he possesses and what spells he can get cast on himself so that he can kick booty the way he should be able to just by himself.

But unfortunately, that will probably not happen. It is too ingrained to change.

I also agree about the post that wanted a replacement for feats, substituting the game designer's addiction to feats to provide flavor and combat effectiveness with an increased number and strength of class abilities and the like.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Ridley's Cohort, what's your point? Of course paladins need higher stats than a Fighter. A wizard probably really only NEEDs one 16 in INT and 8s in everything else. This doesn't make a paladin weak, it means that you need good stats to play one, and if that's a surprise to anyone i'd be amazed!

Then you agree with me: The paladin is weak.

You are implicitly admitting that to pull its weight relative to other classes, the paladin needs "a little extra something" while other classes do not.

If you need good stats to play a paladin and you don't need good stats to play other classes, then the paladin is a weak class. It seems to me the logic is inescapable.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

And I would have played the same character if my stats were all 3-5 points less. That;'s the difference - I see myself as lucky for having these scores, for Celtavian they are the minimum he'd deign to play with, and he'd still be angry about the comparative weakness with the fighter - instead of playing to a paladin's strengths he tries to compete on something they are simply "good" at - combat.
[/B]

I really do not care how low the stats are of characters you have played. I have that merit badge, too. Big deal. What I care about is the role of the paladin within the group and within the story line.

Funny thing is that most players expect a paragon of bravery to do a lot of melee combat.

From the PHB: The paladin's chief role in most groups is as a melee combatant, but she contributes other useful support as well. She makes a good secondary healer, and her high Charisma opens up fine leadership opportunities.

No one expects the paladin to fight as well as a figher or barbarian. But if the paladin is expected to stand on the battle line I expect I high level of melee competence. It is a delicate balance.

 

[Celtavian]

re

No one expects the paladin to fight as well as a figher or barbarian. But if the paladin is expected to stand on the battle line I expect I high level of melee competence. It is a delicate balance.

Personally, I feel a Paladin should fight better than a Fighter or a Barbarian. I know its not good for game balance, but the Paladin I loved best was the Paladin-Cavalier from the old Unearthed Arcana. That was one powerful class that really made you feel like an invincible knight blessed by your god.

I am extremely biased towards Paladins. I still recall reading when Launcelot was unhorsed by archers, but still chased them down on foot to slay them. That is how I picture Paladins, relentless warriors constantly questing and battling for the greater good according to the mandate of their deity and their own personal glory (though humility would prevent them from making such an arrogant boast). If you have this image of the Paladin, then you can see how it is hard to believe that some wandering Barbarian or Fighter would be better in the test of arms.

 

[drothgery]

If you need good stats to play a paladin and you don't need good stats to play other classes, then the paladin is a weak class. It seems to me the logic is inescapable.

Random idea that would seriously reduce the high-stat dependence of paladins -- base their spellcasting off of Charisma, which frees up Wisdom as a dump stat.

 

[Olive]

Then you agree with me: The paladin is weak.

You are implicitly admitting that to pull its weight relative to other classes, the paladin needs "a little extra something" while other classes do not.

If you need good stats to play a paladin and you don't need good stats to play other classes, then the paladin is a weak class. It seems to me the logic is inescapable.

It doesn't amke it weak. It means it has higher entry requirements. Quite different ideas.

And the paladin isn't the only one. The ranger and monk have the same issues and are both, monk especially, arguably weaker than the paladin.

 

[Fedifensor]

It doesn't amke it weak. It means it has higher entry requirements. Quite different ideas.

If paladins require X points to be playable, and fighters require 10 less than X, then fighters will generally have higher stats in their prime abilities.

So looking from a minmaxing perspective, if a fighter saves 4 points on Wisdom and 6 points on Charisma (by taking 8's instead of a 12 Wis and 14 Charisma), those points can be used on Strength and Constitution (or Dexterity). So if the fighter uses those points to buy an extra +4 Strength and +2 Constitution, that means that he has an extra +2 to hit, +2 to damage, and +1 HP/level. That's a pretty significant difference in fighting capability. Certainly sounds like the paladin is weaker in combat than a fighter, even without counting the fighter's sole class feature of extra feats.

And the paladin isn't the only one. The ranger and monk have the same issues and are both, monk especially, arguably weaker than the paladin.

Rangers have Intelligence and Charisma as dump stats, especially for those players who were used to 4 skill points/level. Monks have Intelligence and Charisma as dump stats (though they probably wouldn't want to take Intelligence below 10). Paladins have only Intelligence as a dump stat, and taking it below 10 means a crippling 1 skill point per level, or 2 if you're human. I fail to see how the ranger and monk are as bad off as the paladin. I might buy the argument for the monk (because their AC is almost entirely dependent on Dex and Wis), but you'll have a very tough time convincing me that the ranger is in the same boat.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: re

Personally, I feel a Paladin should fight better than a Fighter or a Barbarian. I know its not good for game balance, but the Paladin I loved best was the Paladin-Cavalier from the old Unearthed Arcana. That was one powerful class that really made you feel like an invincible knight blessed by your god.

I empathize with your sentiment, but, as you already know, that would probably be a bad idea for balance reasons.

I would argue that Paladins should fight against evil outsiders significantly better than fighters or barbarians. The paladin should only be a notch less effective than the fighter/barbarian when fighting evil creatures in general.

That is the role a holy champion needs to fill. If the game is about roleplaying and story building, then that is what the mechanics need to achieve for this class.

To get there the paladin needs some tuned abilites like yet more smites or a continuous protection vs. evil.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It doesn't amke it weak. It means it has higher entry requirements. Quite different ideas.

The warrior class isn't weak either. It just has higher entry requirements.