Is The Paladin Weak?

[Quasqueton]

Some of the comments in this thread show how skewed most players see ability scores.

This is how I tend to describe ability scores (comparing to the common-man norm):

6-7 bad
8-9 below average
10-11 average
12-13 above average
14-15 good
16-17 very good
18-19 great

This is based on the game mechanics. So a 28-point buy character with a simple spread of 14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10 has four "good" abilities.


Unfortunately, most players tend to think of ability scores (comparing to the adventurer norm):

8-9 very bad
10-11 below average
12-13 average
14-15 above average
16-17 barely good
18-19 good

Many players seem to start their thinking at 18. 16 is below their desire. 14 is basic. 12 is dismissable. 10 or less is a weakness.

That is really sad.

Quasqueton

 

[Celtavian]

re

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.

Any hero fits the description you give.

A Paladin in my view is Chosen at a young age to be nurtured by their god and church. They are raised to be Paladins and chosen because they represent the very best of humanity physically, mentally, and spiritually. That is my opinion of a Paladin.

They will still have to make hard choices, but thus is the life of any adventuring hero. A Paladin's choices are just more strictly enforced.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Some of the comments in this thread show how skewed most players see ability scores.

This is how I tend to describe ability scores (comparing to the common-man norm):

6-7 bad
8-9 below average
10-11 average
12-13 above average
14-15 good
16-17 very good
18-19 great

This is based on the game mechanics. So a 28-point buy character with a simple spread of 14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10 has four "good" abilities.


Unfortunately, most players tend to think of ability scores (comparing to the adventurer norm):

8-9 very bad
10-11 below average
12-13 average
14-15 above average
16-17 barely good
18-19 good

Many players seem to start their thinking at 18. 16 is below their desire. 14 is basic. 12 is dismissable. 10 or less is a weakness.

That is really sad.

Quasqueton

Why would you want to play average in a Role Playing Game?

I am better than 28 or 32 points right now with no magic items and minimal training. Why the heck would I want to play someone that is not on par with my own capabilities?

There are extraordinary people in the world that truly exceed the 28 or 32 point buy.

I find it sad that humans such as yourself sell us short when there are living examples of people with extraordinary capabilities all around.

How many times must I continue to name people capable of pressing 300 plus lbs over their heads with IQ's over 150 before you realize that your view of the world is not factually the right one.

Some of us realize that truly extraordinary human beings exist. That in an adventure game, we would prefer to play such individuals rather than Joe Average or Joe Above Average.

Are you aware that bodybuilders and athletes would all have well-rounded Str, Dex and Con probably exceeding 14 in each. The very best would also exceed 14 in Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma as well which would show their ability to play the game intelligently and intuitively as well as leading their team proving their charisma.

The best human beings are the best human beings. They are far better than the majority of people out there. They far exceed 32 points. In an adventure game, why should that not be representative of a small group of characters who friggin fight dragons, demons and save the world on a fairly consistent basis?

 

[Quasqueton]

Why would you want to play average in a Role Playing Game?

Who in this thread has advocated playing any "average" characters? Unless you are saying that 14s and 16s are average? But that would support what I said about players having skewed ideas about ability score levels.

I am better than 28 or 32 points right now with no magic items and minimal training. Why the heck would I want to play someone that is not on par with my own capabilities?

There are extraordinary people in the world that truly exceed the 28 or 32 point buy.

I find it sad that humans such as yourself sell us short when there are living examples of people with extraordinary capabilities all around.

I'm not impressed, nor insulted. But I do note the attempt.

The best human beings are the best human beings. They are far better than the majority of people out there. They far exceed 32 points. In an adventure game, why should that not be representative of a small group of characters who friggin fight dragons, demons and save the world on a fairly consistent basis?

So how far do you suggest people go with the ability scores? Why not all 18's across the board? You've told us where you draw the line for the lowest scores, would you suggest/allow starting scores above 18?

Quasqueton

 

[reapersaurus]

Re: re

The best human beings are the best human beings. They are far better than the majority of people out there. They far exceed 32 points. In an adventure game, why should that not be representative of a small group of characters who friggin fight dragons, demons and save the world on a fairly consistent basis?

Wow.
Good damn point.

This all gets back to what your view of playing roleplaying games is like:

Do you view it as you are playing the 'special' hero, who is (for some reason or another) different (i.e. better) than a normal person?
Or do you see your PC as just another adventurer in a long line of adventurers - hell, they're quite common in these parts.

Further - how do you view an 'average human being', stat-wise?
I view a 10 in a stat as being pretty inadequate for an adventurer. Hell, Joe Public has a 10 in CHA - most adventurers have that, or less than that, due to this slavish obedience to "The Point Buy".

Gads - are you playing heroes in a fantastic realm, who are looking to make their mark on history, or are you playing a flim-flam artist who just makes the most of his slightly above-average skills?

I'd prefer to play the former, not the latter, thank you very much.
If I wanted a slightly-above-normal joe PC, I'd play a different game.

And to reiterate - it's crappy that in 3.X E, the true power of a PC comes from the gear they own, not their innate abilities.
Why is it OK for a PC to have overpowering magic, but not overpowering innate abilities?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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

That is a roleplaying option open to the player of any heroic character, not something that should be imposed on the paladin through mechanics. To do so creates the ultimate self-contradiction -- a brave paladin thats needs to regularly resort to cowardice to survive at all yet is simultaneously 'more heroic' because he dared get out of bed in the morning.

The concept of the paladin is a character that leads by example, takes more than his share of the risks, and is eager to charge in first.

The games mechanics of the paladin is a character that should stand in back, probably should take bow as his weapon of choice, a second string healer, a second string fighter -- the 'utility infielder' who steps up when the Real McCoy goes down.

When the character concept and game mechanics clash, it interferes with roleplaying -- forcing the player to metagame and minmax. That is a design flaw. I do not think the paladin is weak because I lust for power. I think the paladin is weak because it is extremely arduous to live up to its concept with the resources provided.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Damn, Ridley's Cohort, that post of yours just took the words right out of my mouth! Excellent! I couldn't agree with you more. I think that many people seem intent on being content with characters that have middling-to-average ability scores. That's fine, for their games. However, I, like Reapersaurus, Celtavian, yourself, my friend Dragonblade, and others, see the Paladin as being not merely a "little" better than other characters in one ability, and not even a few, but superior and special in many ways, so as to be better equipped to fit the role of the great, heroic champion. Having stats of 10's, 12's, and two 14's doesn't make for a very "heroic" character insofar as when the rubber really meets the road of combat, action, and actually *doing* something. Weak, average Joe-nobody's may desire fervently in the hearts to be heroic, and self-sacrificing, but in the reality of combat, when the heroically statted Fighter and Barbarian win through the desperate fights, the weak Paaldin is slaughtered in the first few rounds of combat. The end result is that while *at that moment in time* the paladin's sacrifice might have been self sacrificing, and even heroic, the fact is, such weak paladins that are dying all the time don't get to live long enough to accomplish great deeds to become KNOWN as heroes, and become great champions. Dead characters aren't great champions. Living champions are--champions that kick ass and take names, and they shouldn't be playing second string to the Fighters and Barbarians! They need to have high stats in order to survive long enough to win, and accomplsih great deeds.

That doesn't mean that Paladins have to have straight 18's either, but somehow insisting that Paladins have such weak average scores doesn't, as you said, provide them with the tools to live up to the concept.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[whydirt]

I've read over the entire thread, and while I don't have the time to respond to individual posts, I'll post my overall thoughts.

My advice to those who want to have more heroic Paladins is this:

1) Allow for Paladin characters to have higher ability scores. This improves the class abilities they already have without changing the class.

2) Either change the Paladin to a Prestige Class, or include create several Paladin PrCs that allow such characters to have more options and possibly more power.

3) Create a Paladin template that could fit on top of regular character classes that takes extra XP much like the Prestige Races from Dragon Magazine or the Oathbound campaign setting. I feel could give you truly heroic and powerful holy warriors, that would require more investment to make the most of them. This also allows you to have more customized Paladins that use different base classes.

 

[Agback]

The Paladin is akin to our own real-world Knights-Templar

There is no reason that a knight templar ought to be able to heal and cure by touch. Why not swap out those abilities for a couple of extra feats? If you were talking about a Knight Hospitaller, a Knight of St Thomas Acon, a Teutonic Knight, or a Knight of St Lazarus, it would be a different story. But the Templars didn't do any healing, they just fought, prayed, and sharked loans.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Celtavian]

re

Quasqueton,

Did you make the following comment which was insulting?

Many players seem to start their thinking at 18. 16 is below their desire. 14 is basic. 12 is dismissable. 10 or less is a weakness.

That is really sad.

yes, I believe you did.

Who in this thread has advocated playing any "average" characters? Unless you are saying that 14s and 16s are average? But that would support what I said about players having skewed ideas about ability score levels.

You have a perspective on stats that I do not think is true. There are many extraordinary people out there and probably quite a few on this board. (I know pogre is involved in athletics. I would bet he knows a few extraordinary athletes who also make the honor role in school.)

You don't have to give up intelligence, wisdom or charisma to gain strength, dexterity and constitution. Its not the way it works in the real world, and if stats are a loose simulation of real world abilities, then I certainly don't want to have to give up something to gain something else. It may be good for balance, but it certainly isn't particularly fair making someone like myself play a character that isn't as good as me.

I don't admonish folks who keeps stats low for balance reasons. That is fine and their choice. Don't give me a hard time because I want to play a character with good stats so I can feel like I am playing someone better than I am. I can't get into playing a character that I can outlift, outthink, outfight, etc, etc.