Is The Paladin Weak?

[Fenes 2]

Very good post, firelance.

I always cringe when people want to modify a core class based on "how it should be the best (insert speciality, terrain, something else or nothing)". The ranger was the worst offender in that case, but there are others as well. IMHO, you should always consider balance first when modifying a class, not your ideal of the class. In SHARK's case I am a bit surprised. Why not raise the bar on paladins, level-wise? Your Legionaires are level 8, iirc, in order to have access to all feats and skills you consider essential. Why not "start" real paladins at level 20 or so? Or make paladins a prestige class you can only enter after being an accomplished knight.

 

[devoblue]

SHARK, There are two assumptions in your post that I think are wrong
1.) That a paladin is a cavalier.
That a paladin is not a cavalier is a concept that was new with 3e and I think it is a good concept too. Back in 1e the paladin was what you would be if you wanted to be a knight before unearthed arcarna came out. The paradigm has changed and it is for the better because it allows a huge variety of paladins that are not cavaliers. A cavalier is a customised fighter. The flexibility with multi-classing that 3e has also allows you to take level of fighter, both before and after you gain levels in paladin. The only change I would consider making to this system is to allow a paladin to freely multi-class as either a fighter or a cleric.

2.) That to be a cavalier you require all of your listed feats.
Whilst the list of feats may be desirable, a perfectly functional cavalier can be built with only a few of them. Focus on only one weapon; you are still proficient with the rest. Take the mounted combat feats if you want to be a specialist at mounted combat, or take great cleave and improved shield bash if you prefer to be a specialist at hand-to-hand combat.

If you really want to you could take one level of paladin, then build your character with levels of fighter. You can still be lawful-good, crusade against evil and call yourself a paladin, but you would have all of the cavalier parts too, and all you are really giving up is undead turning and spell casting that don’t fit with the character concept.

Or, take only levels in fighter, be lawful evil, act noble and be honourable, crusade for what you think is right and call yourself a paladin. Who’s going to argue?

 

[Olive]

A paladin needs improved sheild bash in order to live up to the archetype?

Wierd.

 

[TiQuinn]

I think just dropping the multiclass restriction for Paladins, as well as Monks, would help make the class more attractive.

 

[mmu1]

No offense, SHARK, but anything that happens in your campaign is in no way indicative of D&D as a whole and of what changes need to be made to the various classes...
Between the power level of your game and your very heavy emphasis on trying to match things to real-world military tactics, there's no way you can make a meaningful comparison between your game and the core rules.
You should change the Paladin to be whatever you want it to be, but that doesn't mean the Core one necessarily needs any of those changes.

Although personally I've house-ruled the Paladin as well... I ended up taking away the automatic special mount (which hardly anyone used anyway) and giving the Paladin a bunch of bonus feats (which could be spent on fighter feats, Turning, enhancing class abilities, a limited form of Weapon Specialization, or getting the special mount and enhancing it with further feat selections).

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

(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,

Ack! God no. My Tidus-from-FFX and Warcraft/Diablo inspired paladin is so not this. Instead I swapped out the poke-mount and the cure diseases for the alternative turning feats from Defenders of the Faith (a stopgap, when Warcraft RPG comes out I'll look at how they handle those auras).

Warrior Instinct (Oriental Adventures)
Heroic Courage (AEG's Good, bonus when fighting creatures higher CR than me)
Heroic Daring (AEG's Good, bonus when flanked)
Divine Champion (AEG's Good, bonus when attacking undead or evil clerics/blackguards)

My two auras are:
Divine Protection (homebrew, add Cha mod as Sacred bonus to AC for CHA mod rounds)
Divine Might (DotF, add Cha mod to damage for Cha mod minutes)

Paladins come in whatever flavor the setting allows and the player desires.

I think feats should be more plentiful, more akin to d20 Modern, but that isn't limited to just Paladins but all classes.

 

[ruemere]

(imho)

Just as Fighters excel in combat, Barbarians in combat offensive & mobility, Paladins should be able to:
- inspire and protect allies,
- vanquish evil,
- defend against overwhelming odds.

The Smite Evil, Lay On Hands and Divine Grace are good examples of abilites for Paladins. If you are familiar with alternative paladins from Book of Hallowed Might by St. Monte of Cooks, the ability Stand Against Tide (IIRC) is heartily recommended (it grants AC bonus if the paladin faces multiple opponents).

Other boosts:
- Smite spell from Relics & Rituals by SSS,

Finally, I would allow Paladins to choose one additional feat every 5 levels from this list provided they meet feat prerequisites:
- Diehard (nothing like an opponent who fights to the bitter end)
- Mobility (for fearless charges)
- Weapon Expertise (defence)
- Improved Disarm (winning without killing)
- Iron Will
- Leadership
- Mounted Combat
- Self-Sufficient
- Toughness
- Negotiator
- Lightning Reflexes
- Great Fortitude

These feats would increase the leadership and defensive qualities of the Paladin class without stealing combat performance from Fighters.

My 2 points of damage,
Ruemere

 

[drnuncheon]

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.

I disagree. Where I think the problem is is that far too many designers see the feat mechanic, and use that to add in things that should properly be new combat options.

For example: there should not be a feat that lets you make an attack while leaping down on someone - but I'll bet that if you looked hard enough, you'd be able to find one. On the other hand, FFG did it right in their Path of the Sword - they presented it as a combat option that anyone could attempt.

Similarly, I can't count how many feats I've seen for 'Shield Wall' - which is, at its core, a very basic concept. In my opinion, the only one who's done it right so far is Skip Williams, in his Cry Havoc! for Malhavoc press. He presents it as a combat maneuver for units, not a feat at all.

Basically, a lot of designers forget that many of these 'feats' are things that could be attempted by first level warriors, and that's where they go wrong. Introducing a mechanic as a feat closes it off to anyone who doesn't have the feat - leaving people saying 'but why can't my fighter do this?'

If they were introduced as combat maneuvers - with perhaps an 'Improved X' feat that lessened any associated penalties - then you wouldn't need to have 30 feats to represent the capabilities of a well-trained combatant. A feat would represent elite, in-depth training or extreme focus on a particular subject - just as it should.

Essentially: feats generally should not introduce new rules, they should alter existing rules. I think that this would answer 90% of your complaints.

The other 10% seem to be based on thinking of the feats as the baseline. Not every fighter should have weapon focus and weapon specialization - it should be unusual, someone who has dedicated themselves to that weapon, rather than standard issue for a soldier. Not every solder is going to have all of the Improved X feats (although they'll probably tend to pick them up as they go up in level.) By mentally adjusting the baseline - what you think of as 'normal' or 'average' , you can very easily bring the fighter into focus as an incredibly skilled elite combatant, even at 5th level.

J

 

[Umbran]

What do you think about that?

Honestly, SHARK, I think your personal love of the Paladin concept leads you to want to make them into supermen.

As you well know, a good RPG is about choices - both in terms of character interpersonal interactions and in terms of tactial abilities. As a broad generalization, if you find a single class gives you everything you could want and requires few to no hard choices along the way, that class is probably too good.

I think your strong identification of Paladins with the historical Knights Templar is seriously wide of the mark. Such knights may have been part of the inspiration for paladins, but not the whole. Paladins were also inspired by Charlemagne's Paladins, and the Arthurian knights (and, if you'll notice the most pure and holy of Arthur's knights was not known for his martial prowess). And then, the class went beyond it's inspiration.

The Knights Templar were cool. Committed men, great with horse and shield and weapons and armor. But completely and thoroughly mundane warriors. The Knights Templar could not heal each other with a touch, could not cast spells, couldnb't smell the mere presence of evil, did not have horses far beyond mortal equines, were not supernaturally resistant to attack, could not smite evil with holy power.

Use the right tool for the job, SHARK. Rather than say, "I like Paladins, and I like Knights Templar, so I'll beat all paladins into the Templar role," try saying, "I want a character like this, what class, multiclass, or prestige Class is required to get such a character?" If you want to model the best at mundane combat, use a mundane class - a Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral fighter will have all the martial goodness you need to be a knight.

You have a singular image of what a paladin is, and that's fine if you're looking to play one. But, in terms of designing a core class, you overspecify. You don't design a core class around such a highly focused image - that's the realm of Prestige Classes.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Excellent points,all. Feats should involve getting *better* at something, for the most part, not gaining the ability to do something that any trained warrior could attempt.

Basically, you're describing a mounted knight who is also a holy warrior. Sounds like all you need is a DM who'll Rule 0 multiclassing paladin with fighter, or the appropriate prestige classes.