Is The Paladin Weak?


log in or register to remove this ad

Re: Re: re

Ridley's Cohort said:
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.
Damn, this conclusion is coldly logical, and unfortunately accurate, I fear.

I agree the paladin has some issues.
I'm of the opinion that it literally is not fulfilling its given role in 3E.

As many people have said, a paladin must fight to fulfill their role, yet they frankly suck against non-evil creatures, yet only get a small bonus vs evil opponents less than a handful of attacks a day.

All other classes are arghuably better at combat than a paladin, with more combat-applicable abilities.
Really the only thing that makes them anywhere near effective is if they're on their mount - and we all know the problems inherent in that (not the least of which is that the paladin is weak on their own, and DEPENDANT on his bonded mount to even the odds).

If you can easily create a stronger melee cleric/fighter than paladin, there will be problems in my mind in regards to the paladin's power level, at LEAST against solely evil creatures (none should be better, in my opinion).
 

Divine Might is a useful paladin splatbook feat.

Going farther afield for special class features, look at the AU Champion class for some good examples.
 

Hawkshere said:
Divine Might is a useful paladin splatbook feat.
Just to cut that off at the pass:
Divine Might is not a paladin feat. It's a Divine feat, which actually boils down to a cleric getting it easier, since they get turn undead 3 levels earlier (in 3.5E). Fighters get more feats overall, so they can afford them more (if they get turn undead somewhere).

All that's needed to benefit from the Divine Might is a high CHA.
Most people associate it with paladins, though, I've seen very often.
 

Re: re

Celtavian said:


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.

Yes, I too have always felt this way. Balance be damned! The paladin should be an invincible knight, a champion of his god! A divine warrior whose might and invincible battle prowess serves as a shining beacon, uplifting the hearts and hope of all good creatures fortunate enough to bear witness to his/her awesome presence both on and off the battlefield.

A powerful high-level fighter with the half-celestial template is more my idea of what a paladin should be.
 

Re: Re: re

Dragonblade said:


The paladin should be an invincible knight, a champion of his god! A divine warrior whose might and invincible battle prowess serves as a shining beacon, uplifting the hearts and hope of all good creatures fortunate enough to bear witness to his/her awesome presence both on and off the battlefield.


Try DMing or playing one of the other characters in a game with this sort of Paladin. I suggest it wouldn't e much fun

GamerMan12
 

Re: Re: re

Ridley's Cohort said:

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

I agree... while my Paladin is doing fine as he is, it is mainly because of the very high stats I was able to roll. (Str 17, Con 13, Dex 16, Int 11, Wis 16, Cha 18) After the racial bonuses it was Str 17, Con 15, Dex 16, Int 11, Wis 16, Cha 16.

Even with extraordinarily high stats, it would sure be nice to have a few more smite evils... while being able to detect evil at will is nice, it doesn't really help when fighting them. In my opinion, no one should excel more than the Paladin at fighting evil. That is true if you have 3 smites/day and you go against only one evil creature/day, but it is difficult when you only have 2 smites and you go against about 10 evil creatures a day.
 

Umbran said:


One fight does not a better warrior prove. Especially when Galahad was, IIRC, carrying an artifact (the Shield of Joseph of Aramathea) at the time.

Also, I quote from Bullfinch (italics my own):

"Then Sir Galahad rode into the midst of the meadow; and there he began to break spears marvelously, so that all men had wonder of him, for he surmounted all knights that encountered with him, except two, Sir Launcelot and Sir Perceval."

Didn't you just contradict your own point with that quote? Galahad in that bit beat every single knight save for two. Hardly sounds like a wimp. Besides, isn't Excalibur an artifact? Yet Lancelot was able to consistently beat Arthur every time they fought.

I thought Percival was Arthurs greatest night?

"Greatest Night"? :p No, it was Lancelot.
 
Last edited:

Re: Re: re

Dragonblade said:


Yes, I too have always felt this way. Balance be damned! The paladin should be an invincible knight, a champion of his god! A divine warrior whose might and invincible battle prowess serves as a shining beacon, uplifting the hearts and hope of all good creatures fortunate enough to bear witness to his/her awesome presence both on and off the battlefield.

So, a prestige class, then.

:D

J
 

Paladins aren't heros because they are the best, but because what they do is hard and others are unwilling.

It is more heroic to hold the line and fight a foe that you know is superior martially.

It is easier to spend all your time learning to fight than to spend time pondering what is right.

Being a paladin is about making the hard choices, and I think this should extend to the player a little bit as well. If paladins are the toughest character out there, then it's not a hard choice to take one. If you take a paladin knowing you won't get all the cool feats, and you have to spread your stat point thinner, then I think you can get into the spirit of the character much easier.
 

Remove ads

Top