Paladin balanced without RP/alignment restrictions?

[Treebore]

Seis,

I understand where you are coming from but the classes use the same xp system because they are supposed to be balanced when compared to each other. Plus the initial question, to me, was about fighting ability.


the paladin, over all, is no more powerful than any other class, even with their supernatural/divine powers.

If there was a class for me to say is unbalanced it is the cleric. Even so it is with certain domains and not by such a great degree as to be an imbalance worth crying about.

 

[Sejs]

Nah, we're on the same wavelength - I think the paladin is balanced even without the roleplaying restrictions.

I just think that comparaing a paladin and a fighter ("well the paladin has this magical benefit, and this magical benefit, where the fighter just has feats") is inherrantly off - it would be the same if you were comparing bards and rogues. I think that the paladin's closest equivelant, another warrior class that has magical abilities and limited spellcasting, is the ranger.

The same ranger that doesn't have any roleplaying or alignment restrictions.

^_^

 

[Falling Icicle]

I do not feel that the Paladin is an overpowered class, but I do think that the code of conduct is an important balancing factor for the class. They have many effective abilities, and this class was built with the knowledge that it had some pretty big drawbacks. They have the fighter attack bonus, awesome saves, immunities, turning, healing, a small (but helpful) spell selection, etc. I do think that the multiclassing restricition is lame and unneccessary though. We don't use it in our game.

I also think that the fact that they permanently lose their abilities and can't even atone get them back if they ever deliberatly perform an evil act is a bit overboard. History is full of great heroes and figures of virtue who weren't always that virtuous. Just as evil gods delight in corrupting the pure of heart, so too do good gods delight when an evil being sincerely repents of its wicked ways. I think an atonement spell and appropriate quest should be able to restore Paladinhood under almost any circumstances, though terrible crimes should require an equally significant quest from the Paladin. I'm not saying it should be easy, I'm only saying it should be possible. Turning a character's Paladin levels forever into effective Warrior levels (a class far too weak for PCs) is way too harsh, and leaves such Paladins more likely to just say "forget it" and make a new character rather than continue to play their character and enjoy any of the rich roleplaying that could follow.

 

[argo]

How does the person the paladin is talking to even know he's a paladin? Looks like a cleric to me, and we all know they can lie. Besides, he could be telling the Aes Sedai version of the truth. The only evidence he has is a fancy horse, unless the person he's talking to has a really good Spellcraft check.

And what does "a measure of support" mean? It's not defined. (I hope some poor DM isn't going to hand out clerics as "shock troops".) This is exactly the same sort of support a cleric should expect, and the cleric pays a much lower RP price than the paladin.

*shrug* I dunno. Depends on the campagin.

Take an example from one end of the spectrum. If your game is a "kick in the door" game then you probably spend little time in town except to rest and reequip. So it is likely that the townsfolk have no idea you are a paladin, you are just another adventurer who takes better care polishing his armor. Then again, since you probably don't talk to the orc before taking his pie lying to him never becomes an issue so the code isn't all that restrictive anyway. On the other end of the spectrum you might be playing a "politics and intrigue" game. In that case everybody at the royal court does indeed know that you are a paladin because the Holy Mother Church announced you as such when you went there to take your position as a Knight of the Realm which, conviently enough, does come with a badge of office to hang about your neck.

The point I was trying to make is that the DM should balance the code with RP benefits/penalties which scale with the importance of the code in the campagin he is running. Because mechanically speaking, the paladin is a balanced class.

 

[reapersaurus]

I think that without restrictions it becomes the ultimate melee munchkin class.

Celt, make up your mind.

First you say they're the best melee munchkin class, then you say the fighter is better in melee.

I could discuss this for 7 paragraphs, but I'll sum in up this way:
The paladin is the weakest melee class IN MELEE with fighter BAB progression.
His benefits are dependant on an evil foe (something you can't assume), and require a huge expenditure into high CHA (while other classes can put their resources into STR, DEX, and CON).
The paladin is potentially a better DEFENSIVE character than a fighter who uses his feats offensively. That's about all you can say good for the paladin.

The paladin is one of the most overrated (power-levle-wise) classes in the game.
I can back this up with years of testing, rules discussions and power-gaming builds.

 

[Celtavian]

Celt, make up your mind.

First you say they're the best melee munchkin class, then you say the fighter is better in melee.

The best melee munchkin class does not always mean the best in one on one combat. I already illustrated my points as to why this class is much better than the fighter in Player vs. Adventure scenarios, the majority of D&D gaming.

Just because a Paladin can't beat a fighter in one on one combat hardly means its not better than a fighter.

You completely ignore my other points to focus on what...one on one combat...something that few players engage in?

I could discuss this for 7 paragraphs, but I'll sum in up this way:
The paladin is the weakest melee class IN MELEE with fighter BAB progression.
His benefits are dependant on an evil foe (something you can't assume), and require a huge expenditure into high CHA (while other classes can put their resources into STR, DEX, and CON).
The paladin is potentially a better DEFENSIVE character than a fighter who uses his feats offensively. That's about all you can say good for the paladin.

Save that the majority of adventuring involves facing evil opponents and a Paladin has a better rate of long term survival while only being marginally less efficient than a fighter in melee.

Your above statement is utterly false that it is a laughable.

The paladin is one of the most overrated (power-levle-wise) classes in the game.
I can back this up with years of testing, rules discussions and power-gaming builds.

Another laughable statement. I can back up what I say with years of testing as well. The Paladin is the strongest melee class you can play (strongest Player vs. Adventure melee class, only marginally less strong in one-on-one combat).

I've already stated my reasons, which are irrefutable without resorting to "my fighter can take one level of cleric".

 

[reapersaurus]

Just because a Paladin can't beat a fighter in one on one combat hardly means its not better than a fighter.

You completely ignore my other points to focus on what...one on one combat...something that few players engage in?

Save that the majority of adventuring involves facing evil opponents...

After reading this 3 times, I think I see why you're coming off as baffling to me.

You keep mentioning MELEE.
I do not think this word means what you think it does.

I ignored the other aspects of the Paladin you mentioned because you said the Paladin was the best in melee.

Melee means combat, Celt.
"One on one combat".... "one on many"... "many on one".... it's all combat.
And hands-down, the fighter is better in combat than the paladin.

So I think you are just not reading closely what you're typing.
Because you seem to be insisting that the paladin is better in melee (i.e. combat) than a fighter.

If you are just using the wrong words, and are meaning to point out the other benefits a paladin gets, and explain how they are beneficial in an adventure... well, I'd agree with that wholeheartedly.
Hell, just the roleplaying aspect makes paladins great to play.
That doesn't mean they're good in combat, though.

edit: and since when do most adventure encounters happen against evil opponents?
You must play in very different campaigns than I've seen people play in to come to that conclusion.

 

[Celtavian]

Reaper,

When I say melee class I mean the following: a class that's primary form of damage is melee damage. That includes the rogue, monk, fighter, ranger, barbarian, and paladin.

Out of those classes, I think the Paladin is the strongest melee class for the variety of factors I mentioned. In terms of offensive and defensive capabilities, a Paladin is the strongest in Player vs. Adventure scenarios.

When I stated that a fighter could beat a paladin a pure melee contest, I mean without the use of spells or self-healing. If a Paladin is using spells and self-healing, I think they will beat the fighter more often than not.

Paladins are a very strong melee class with a plethora of abilities, every single one of them useful during an adventure save for perhaps the Remove disease ability which might not come up often.

There are often times when a Fighter feat might not be useable such as a creature being too large to be tripped or having no weapons to be disarmed. There are many times when a Ranger isn't fighting a favored enemy or needs all those skills. A monk (can't heal themselves) is nearly as good as a Paladin, but has five less on their BAB. Rogues are good at dealing damage, not very good at taking it. A Barbarian is good when raging, but once the rage is over they can't heal themselves nor cast spells.

A Paladin is extraordinarily well-rounded for a melee class and extremely powerful. Without the expectation that they are a force for good, they could be abused as a munchkin character who acts in any manor they choosewhile receiving abilities far superior to all other melee classes save for perhaps the monk.

I have played many a Paladin. They are often a DM's nightmare.

For example,

1. When that scary dragon comes, they stand ready to fight without a second thought.

2. The DM blinks while the Paladin player tells him straight faced that he has a +13 Reflex save and a +16 Will save because of his high charisma.

3. The regular fighter is crying for the cleric (or the Paladin) after exhausting his cure potions, the Paladin pulls out his wand of cure serious wounds and starts healing himself.

4. The monk is crying for the cleric (or the Paladin) because some nasty spectres just gave him negative levels, the Paladin draws his Restoration scroll and restores himself.

5. The party is attacked by flying demons. The Paladin mounts his half-celestial unicorn and flys up to meet them.

6. The fighter is screaming for align weapon so he can land a blow on a fiend, the paladin casts bless weapon and proceeds to swing away.

A Paladin is powerful, the most powerful of the melee classes. So many useful capabilities that you have to balance the class by giving them a code of conduct, or it would get outlandish.

I am truly boggled when someone states the Paladin is a weak melee class. I'm wondering what type of game they are in and how they are playing the class. Every Paladin I've ever played or seen played has been one of the most powerful characters in the group. I can't imagine allowing another class to have such abilities without some roleplaying restriciton such as a service to a god, cause, or code of ethics and morality.

 

[Majere]

Fighters are generalized, feats out there bottomg fighters. Solid reliable melee whackage.

Rangers are fighters specialized against a few races, or in the outdoors.
Barbarians are fighters specialized in either killing or being killed, huge offense, weak on the defense.
Rogues (in combat) specialise in crippling first strikes.

Paladins specialise in killing evil.

Remeber there is NOTHING stopping a fighter taking ranks in the right skills and being a mounted warrior fruitcake, or buying himself a hfl celestial-half brokens mount of blah (most paladins seem to have some horribly broken custom mount to make up for them being useless elsewhere).
Paladins are specialized fighters, they are balances without the RP baggage most people what to weight them down with.

Majere

 

[Celtavian]

Fighters are generalized, feats out there bottomg fighters. Solid reliable melee whackage.

Rangers are fighters specialized against a few races, or in the outdoors.
Barbarians are fighters specialized in either killing or being killed, huge offense, weak on the defense.
Rogues (in combat) specialise in crippling first strikes.

Paladins specialise in killing evil.

Remeber there is NOTHING stopping a fighter taking ranks in the right skills and being a mounted warrior fruitcake, or buying himself a hfl celestial-half brokens mount of blah (most paladins seem to have some horribly broken custom mount to make up for them being useless elsewhere).
Paladins are specialized fighters, they are balances without the RP baggage most people what to weight them down with.

Majere

Can you explain why all those claiming that Paladins "don't need the roleplay baggage" completely ignore the powerful ability of the Paladin to heal themselves with Lay on Hands and magic wands and scrolls? Why you completely ignore the save bonuses that work whether the opponent is evil or not? The immunity to fear that works whether the opponent is evil or not? Better movement because of their mounts? The ability to turn undead eliminating low level undead and fueling divine feats? Immunity to disease including powerful magical diseases like Mummy rot or lycanthropy and certain fungal/parasitic diseases like green slime.

Talk about trying to paint a false picture by completely ignoring the powerful capabilities of the Paladin that work irregardless of whether the opponent is evil or not. I'm glad the designers of the class aren't so ignorant.