reapersaurus
Explorer
you're a newbie to Paladin threads on here, aren't you?The Blue Elf said:
Is The Paladin Weak?
- Thread starter SHARK
- Start date
Gothmog
First Post
Originally posted by reapersaurus:
You know, I did this IMC, and it hasn't screwed anybody over. Every class gets a feat at a new odd level, and the fighter keeps his bonus feats according to class description. I have found that the 10th level human paladin in my game has 1 background feat (I require it, but give an extra feat) of Noble Bearing (+2 on Diplomacy & Sense Motive), and 6 regular feats: Power Attack, Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, Imp Crit Greatsword, Two-Handed Powerstrike (x2 Str mod w/2h- Mongoose), and Strength or Purpose (homebrew feat- lets the paladin get an extra smite per day). He does very well for himself in a fight, has more options, but he still has to be careful around straight fighters.
You know, I did this IMC, and it hasn't screwed anybody over. Every class gets a feat at a new odd level, and the fighter keeps his bonus feats according to class description. I have found that the 10th level human paladin in my game has 1 background feat (I require it, but give an extra feat) of Noble Bearing (+2 on Diplomacy & Sense Motive), and 6 regular feats: Power Attack, Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, Imp Crit Greatsword, Two-Handed Powerstrike (x2 Str mod w/2h- Mongoose), and Strength or Purpose (homebrew feat- lets the paladin get an extra smite per day). He does very well for himself in a fight, has more options, but he still has to be careful around straight fighters.
Planesdragon
First Post
SHARK said:
They did. Paladins are holy warriors--NOT KNIGHTS.
A paladin lives or dies by faith. They are Constantanople the Great or Richard the Lionhearted--not Lancuelot du Lac or Beowulf.
And, if a Paladin really does want more martial skill, they can just pick up levels of fighter.
FWIW, I have a variant knight class, which better represents secular champions.
genshou
First Post
Paladins, eh?
As a player, I am too chaotic by FAR to play a paladin. However, I have looked at them as far as these things go, from an entirely outside view. They really could use a feat every five levels without even coming close to upsetting game balance. These feats would not necessarily even have to be combat feats. Feats such as Trustworthy from S&Si or Leadership all work well for the paladin, as does Iron Will, really. I once created the stereotypical knight - a fighter who used full plate, bastard swords (one-handed) and tower shields. He used a lance in mounted combat, which is where most of his emphasis as a Cavalier went, but could hold his own in a dungeon. Paladins aren't always meant to be weapon experts, they're sort of a watered-down cleric with fighting ability. Barbarians don't need all those feats. And look at the barbarian spell list:
Cause light wounds: Focus component: handaxe
Cause serious wounds: Focus component: greataxe
Cause critical wounds: Focus component: Improved Critical (greataxe)
Disintegrate: Focus component: maul
Bull's strength (maximized): Material component: Barbarian rage
Endurance (maximized): Material component: Barbarian rage
Have I made my point: Yes, I thought I had.
So, in the end, I agree with everyone on this issue. Paladins might need a boost, but not an excessive one. Heh, just feel lucky they didn't screw over paladins like they did rangers. How can I make a hardy woodsman (non-barbarian) now? It's too much like rogue! I've lost my favored and nearly only class! NOOOOOOOOO!!!
As a player, I am too chaotic by FAR to play a paladin. However, I have looked at them as far as these things go, from an entirely outside view. They really could use a feat every five levels without even coming close to upsetting game balance. These feats would not necessarily even have to be combat feats. Feats such as Trustworthy from S&Si or Leadership all work well for the paladin, as does Iron Will, really. I once created the stereotypical knight - a fighter who used full plate, bastard swords (one-handed) and tower shields. He used a lance in mounted combat, which is where most of his emphasis as a Cavalier went, but could hold his own in a dungeon. Paladins aren't always meant to be weapon experts, they're sort of a watered-down cleric with fighting ability. Barbarians don't need all those feats. And look at the barbarian spell list:
Cause light wounds: Focus component: handaxe
Cause serious wounds: Focus component: greataxe
Cause critical wounds: Focus component: Improved Critical (greataxe)
Disintegrate: Focus component: maul
Bull's strength (maximized): Material component: Barbarian rage
Endurance (maximized): Material component: Barbarian rage
Have I made my point: Yes, I thought I had.
So, in the end, I agree with everyone on this issue. Paladins might need a boost, but not an excessive one. Heh, just feel lucky they didn't screw over paladins like they did rangers. How can I make a hardy woodsman (non-barbarian) now? It's too much like rogue! I've lost my favored and nearly only class! NOOOOOOOOO!!!
Zarrock God of Evil
First Post
ForceUser said:
Yeah, and in some campaigns paladins have more multiclass options (like FR - for instance Paladins of Tyr can freely multiclass into fighter etc.). Personally, I give all classes free multiclassing as long as it doesn't violate alignment restrictions...
-Zarrock
FireLance
Legend
Well, I must admit that I have a soft spot for paladins, and I am quite pleased by the upgrade they got in 3.5e (at higher levels, anyway).
I suppose the question of whether the paladin fulfils his role depends on what you deem the role of the paladin to be.
Should a paladin be a good fighter? In my view, yes.
Should a paladin be the best person to oppose evil? In my view, yes.
Should a paladin be the best fighter? In my view, not necessarily.
Should a paladin be the best horseman or knight? Again, in my view, not necessarily.
To me, the measure of a paladin is not how well he fights or how well he performs in a joust. Pure combat prowess is the province of the fighter. A paladin is meant for other things.
A paladin seeks to be the living embodiment of his code. A paladin lives to oppose evil. A paladin stands in the gap to protect those who are weaker than he is, even if it means dying in the attempt. Combat ability is useful, but not essential for any of these things.
On a more game mechanic level, who is the paladin supposed to outfight? An opponent of equal CR? By definition, such an opponent is supposed to be an "appropriate challenge" for a party of four characters of the same level. If a paladin is clearly superior to such an opponent, he is probably "overpowered".
Is the paladin supposed to outfight a fighter of the same level? There is an equally good argument that for balance reasons, a paladin should not outshine a fighter in his area of specialty.
Within the constraints of a 20-level game then, a paladin has to make choices. Take fighter levels or stay on the paladin's path? Better combat ability or increased effectiveness against evil? This is a constraint I accept in the broader interest of the game.
I suppose the question of whether the paladin fulfils his role depends on what you deem the role of the paladin to be.
Should a paladin be a good fighter? In my view, yes.
Should a paladin be the best person to oppose evil? In my view, yes.
Should a paladin be the best fighter? In my view, not necessarily.
Should a paladin be the best horseman or knight? Again, in my view, not necessarily.
To me, the measure of a paladin is not how well he fights or how well he performs in a joust. Pure combat prowess is the province of the fighter. A paladin is meant for other things.
A paladin seeks to be the living embodiment of his code. A paladin lives to oppose evil. A paladin stands in the gap to protect those who are weaker than he is, even if it means dying in the attempt. Combat ability is useful, but not essential for any of these things.
On a more game mechanic level, who is the paladin supposed to outfight? An opponent of equal CR? By definition, such an opponent is supposed to be an "appropriate challenge" for a party of four characters of the same level. If a paladin is clearly superior to such an opponent, he is probably "overpowered".
Is the paladin supposed to outfight a fighter of the same level? There is an equally good argument that for balance reasons, a paladin should not outshine a fighter in his area of specialty.
Within the constraints of a 20-level game then, a paladin has to make choices. Take fighter levels or stay on the paladin's path? Better combat ability or increased effectiveness against evil? This is a constraint I accept in the broader interest of the game.
Marimmar
First Post
Giving paladins free feats is a baaad idea, there's no need to play a straight fighter again. The alignment restriction won't make up for this. A compromise could be a converted 1e Cavalier class.
1st) Weapon Focus (lance)
2nd) Weapon Focus (longsword)
4th) Mounted Combat
7th) Weapon Focus (pick, mace or flail)
8th) Spirited Charge
10th) Improved Crit (lance)
11th) Improved Crit (longsword)
13th) Ride-by Attack
14th) Improved Crit (pick, mace or flail)
To pay for so many extra feats (how useful they may be) it would be wise to reduce the divine bonus to saving throws to only apply to WIL saves.
~Marimmar
1st) Weapon Focus (lance)
2nd) Weapon Focus (longsword)
4th) Mounted Combat
7th) Weapon Focus (pick, mace or flail)
8th) Spirited Charge
10th) Improved Crit (lance)
11th) Improved Crit (longsword)
13th) Ride-by Attack
14th) Improved Crit (pick, mace or flail)
To pay for so many extra feats (how useful they may be) it would be wise to reduce the divine bonus to saving throws to only apply to WIL saves.
~Marimmar
re
We have given bonus feats to the Paladin at the rate of 1 at first level and 1 every 5 levels thereafter. Even if you don't believe the Paladin must be the stereotypical knight, they are still holy warriors as in they train to fight all the time. There special abilities are not like a Rangers where you train to obtain them, they are divinely bestowed upon you. You can spend a great deal more time learning to fight.
We have done the same thing for the Sorcerer with an emphasis on metamagic. We also give the Barbarian bonus feats 1 every 5 levels. Each class has their own separate bonus feats from which to choose.
This addition has not broken our game. It gives the characters a little more leeway to create the concepts they would like to play.
We have given bonus feats to the Paladin at the rate of 1 at first level and 1 every 5 levels thereafter. Even if you don't believe the Paladin must be the stereotypical knight, they are still holy warriors as in they train to fight all the time. There special abilities are not like a Rangers where you train to obtain them, they are divinely bestowed upon you. You can spend a great deal more time learning to fight.
We have done the same thing for the Sorcerer with an emphasis on metamagic. We also give the Barbarian bonus feats 1 every 5 levels. Each class has their own separate bonus feats from which to choose.
This addition has not broken our game. It gives the characters a little more leeway to create the concepts they would like to play.
Green Knight
First Post
SHARK, have you seen the little Power Classes booklets put out by Mongoose? If not, you might want to check them out. They only cost $2.99. Each is dedicated to giving the rules for one all-new base class, and one of them is called "Knight". Pretty cool class, if I do say so, myself. You may want to check it out, as it may suit your purposes (For one thing, you get a bonus feat every 5 levels).
As for the Paladin, I REALLY wish they had given them a Bonus Feat every 5 levels, but what're you gonna do? I don't think that would've been over-powering at all, but there it is. Of course, if you want to give other classes extra Feats, while still keeping the Fighter balanced, then how does this sound? Give the Fighter a Bonus Feat at every level, rather than at every even level. So a 10th-level Fighter will have 14 Feats, rather than 10. A 20th-level Fighter will have 27 Feats, rather than 18. Then adjust every other class, appropriately (Maybe not just with Bonus Feats, but with Talents, like those from D20 Modern). Just something I thought worth throwing out, there.
As for the Paladin, I REALLY wish they had given them a Bonus Feat every 5 levels, but what're you gonna do? I don't think that would've been over-powering at all, but there it is. Of course, if you want to give other classes extra Feats, while still keeping the Fighter balanced, then how does this sound? Give the Fighter a Bonus Feat at every level, rather than at every even level. So a 10th-level Fighter will have 14 Feats, rather than 10. A 20th-level Fighter will have 27 Feats, rather than 18. Then adjust every other class, appropriately (Maybe not just with Bonus Feats, but with Talents, like those from D20 Modern). Just something I thought worth throwing out, there.
FireLance
Legend
Re: re
Why stop at paladins, barbarians and sorcerers? Why not give every character a feat at every odd-numbered level (3, 5, 7, 9, etc.) instead of the current feat progression (3, 6, 9, 12, etc.)? That way, every character can get more customised and we don't reduce the fighter's or the wizard's feat advantage.
Just remember to give the monsters feats at every odd HD too, or the PCs will soon outstrip them in power.
Why stop at paladins, barbarians and sorcerers? Why not give every character a feat at every odd-numbered level (3, 5, 7, 9, etc.) instead of the current feat progression (3, 6, 9, 12, etc.)? That way, every character can get more customised and we don't reduce the fighter's or the wizard's feat advantage.
Just remember to give the monsters feats at every odd HD too, or the PCs will soon outstrip them in power.
Similar Threads
