Paladin balanced without RP/alignment restrictions?

[irdeggman]

There are 3 classes that are on paper more powerful than the others. Barbarian, paladin and monk. These 3 have alignment restictions which help to balance them out. Two of them (monk and paladin) have multiclassing restrictions which further helps to keep them balanced.

The code of conduct can be a powerful balancer but it all depends on how the DM plays it. If he puts the paladin into situations where his code of conduct is in question then it is pretty powerful. I love the 2nd ed phrase describing paladins "first in and last out" - they typically have a higher mortality rate than other characters if played IAW with their code of conduct.

In straight combat the paladin is not as powerful as the other warrior type classes, in spell casting and turning undead he is not as powerful as clerics. But the fact that he gets to do some of all of these (include in lay on hands, divine grace, and his special mount) then the class makes up ground on the other classes which are pretty much fmore ocused on combat (except for the ranger).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

There are 3 classes that are on paper more powerful than the others. Barbarian, paladin and monk.

Lol! The monk is definitely not more powerful than the other classes on paper. A fighter can easily exceed it's damage with Weapon Specialization and a weapon that doesn't cost 1.5x what it's supposed to cost (and, of course, doesn't take up the Amulet of Health slot either).

These 3 have alignment restictions which help to balance them out. Two of them (monk and paladin) have multiclassing restrictions which further helps to keep them balanced.

There's no balance involved - WotC has admitted the monk and paladin multiclassing restriction is pure flavor.

The code of conduct can be a powerful balancer but it all depends on how the DM plays it. If he puts the paladin into situations where his code of conduct is in question then it is pretty powerful. I love the 2nd ed phrase describing paladins "first in and last out" - they typically have a higher mortality rate than other characters if played IAW with their code of conduct.

Yup, lawful stupid characters sure suffer from a higher mortality - see also www.dawinawards.com

 

[Aaron L]

Isn't it a stated design philosophy that NOTHING rules-wise will be balanced with a roleplaying restriction? I'm pretty sure it is...

 

[reapersaurus]

Celt - I offered this in the cleric/fighter vs paladin thread (IIRC), and I'll offer it here:

I will guarantee you here and now that if I (or any other competant powergamer) make a fighter and fight against your paladin, the fighter will win way more than 50% of the time.
I unfortunately don't have the time to make one anymore.
I'd even be willing to make it an uneven contest and make the fighter evil just to show you how bad a paladin is in combat compared to a fighter.

Smite Evil is the most overrated feature in the game. It's one or 2 shots, and only...

you know what? Forget it, Celt - many people have pointed out many comparisons which show how weak a paladin is in combat, yet you've either dismissed them or completely ignored them (like the damning, critical aspect you've been ignoring - that the fighter will have much better stats!).

The paladin is already in the whole from the start, since he has to spend crucial stat points on CHA, which is almost a wasted stat in combat. It only affects his saves, and other weak abilities. The only good combat feature a paladin has is Divine Might, and that is only effective a few times a day, and unless he's poured a ton of resources into it, will simply not be able to compare to the fighter's Weapon Focus, Power Attack, and Weapon Specialization.

And a paladin's spells suck. You must be forgetting 2 things:
1) A paladin casts at half level.
2) Whenever he's casting a spell, he's not attacking.

Look, there's already overwhelming examples that show that a paladin is not as good in combat as a fighter. You're free to ignore them, and continue to cherry-pick your responses, and overplay the paladin's abilities (seriously - immunity to fear?!? At best that shows up 3% of the encounters. What about the other 97% of the encounters?)

BTW: A fighter's feats may be situational, but what you're not realizing or admitting is that the fighter is in charge of the situation, unlike the paladin.
A fighter can make the situation happen (Improved Trip, etc etc etc), while the paladin is not in control of when his situational abilities will apply.

 

[Celtavian]

re

And a paladin's spells suck. You must be forgetting 2 things:
1) A paladin casts at half level.
2) Whenever he's casting a spell, he's not attacking.

A Paladin's spells do not suck. Restoration, Resist Energy and Death Ward are a huge advantage.

Look, there's already overwhelming examples that show that a paladin is not as good in combat as a fighter. You're free to ignore them, and continue to cherry-pick your responses, and overplay the paladin's abilities (seriously - immunity to fear?!? At best that shows up 3% of the encounters. What about the other 97% of the encounters?)

And the Paladin is somehow seriously hamstringed in what percentage of encounters? Immunity to fear helps in 3%, and the Paladin does fine in the other 97%. Why don't you do some math and show me how he does so badly in the other 97% of encounters?

BTW: A fighter's feats may be situational, but what you're not realizing or admitting is that the fighter is in charge of the situation, unlike the paladin.
A fighter can make the situation happen (Improved Trip, etc etc etc), while the paladin is not in control of when his situational abilities will apply.

A Paladin is quite in charge of his abilities. He can use his smites at key times. If he is attacked by incorporeal undead, he can spend a round to Death Ward himself via personal spell or scroll, while a fighter cannot. After the battle he can restore himself, which a fighter cannot.

A Paladin's abilities are under as much as a fighters. A fighter doesn't get to decide when he can use certain feats. he doesn't decide when he can disarm. He doesn't get to decide when he can trip. He doesn't get to decide when he can sunder. The situation decides for him. Or are you going to point out ways to disarm creatures with no physical weapons? Or ways to trip giants or incorporeal undead? Or Sunder natural weapons? All very common in many encounters.

You're reaching. A Paladin fights evil creatures 90% of the time in a dungeon as does a fighter. Most of the feats a Fighter can use anytime he wants, a Paladin can buy with the few feats he receives. It is no problem for a Paladin to drop a feat in Weapon Focus (very common), Power Attack, and Combat Expertise. There probably aren't going to be too many Two-weapon fighting Paladins, but there are plenty of Two-hander and sword/shield Paladins.


Believe what you want Reaper. I play Paladins all the time, they do much better than fighters.

I can't even remember the last time someone in our campaign world played a straight fighter, barbarian, or ranger, yet more than a few characters have been Paladins. Paladin is probably the most popular melee class in our campaigns.

Then again, a point I will concede, we would never in a billion years play 28 or 32 point buy. Since we roll using a very liberal rolling method, Paladins come out extremely powerful usually with a high Str, Con, Wis and Cha.

Maybe in the confines of a 28 point buy campaign, a Paladin is not as good as a fighter due to statistic limitation. But in a campaign where stats aren't particularly limited, they are exceedingly powerful. They do require a roleplaying limitation.

I never run games requiring 28 point buy. I never will. I personally am better than 28 points in real life, and I would argue 32 points as well. I would never expect a character to be made on such a low number of points in a heroic fantasy game unless I was trying for a real gritty feel.

I do agree that in a limited statistic campaign (I guess default D&D), a Paladin is hamstrung. They do need at least four decent stats to truly take advantage of all their abilities.

Now, if stats are not a limitation is the Paladin more powerful than the fighter? It is my experience that they are.

 

[argo]

I personally am better than 28 points in real life, and I would argue 32 points as well.

Uh, a little full of ourselves are we?

I tease, I tease.

I do agree that in a limited statistic campaign (I guess default D&D), a Paladin is hamstrung. They do need at least four decent stats to truly take advantage of all their abilities.

Now, if stats are not a limitation is the Paladin more powerful than the fighter? It is my experience that they are.

That is very much the case. Pally and Monk both (and to a lesset extent Bard, Ranger and Druid) suffer from MAD: Multiple Attribute Dependency. At 25 points (which is the "standard" power level BTW) I and many other people I know believe that Pally and Monk are nearly unplayable. At 28-32 points they are, I think, quite well balanced against the other classes. Above 32 points they quickly get better and better until, around 38 points or so, they become very broken. Matter of fact many game mechanics start to break at about 40 points.

A 28 point Paladin will probably have a Cha of 14-16, and that is assuming he makes it his first or second stat. Meaning that his divine grace ability is worth about three feats. Nothing the Fighter can't keep up with. However, should he manage a Cha closer to 18-20 then all of a sudden Divine Grace becomes worth something more like six or eight feats (hard to judge since there is no "Improved Iron Will" feat). Now the Fighter might be starting to sweat it a little.

Personally, my preference is for games in the 28-32 range and I think the Paladin is just fine. Maybe even a little on the weak side since vampires and dragons aren't as common an enemy as a true neutral human fighter with a conflicting agenda. Obviously your experience is different.

 

[irdeggman]

Something to keep in mind is that balance has nothing to do with how well on class does against another in s specific situation. For example a fighter versus a paladin in ono-on-one combat.

The overall picture needs to be looked at - how well do the classes fit into a party of 4 adventures and how often will they be able to actively participate and aid in pursuing the party's goals.
3/3.5 is all about working as a team unlike 2nd ed which was focused on individual actions.

A paladin has a lot of abilities that are useful in a party concept that a fighter cannot do, a fighter has a lot of abilities (feat-based ones) that a paladin cannot do, a rogue has a lot of abilities that neither a paladin nor a fighter can do.

What is the overall scheme and party concept being used.

In a party without a cleric a paladin is real useful (can't beat that lay on hands thing) and that is something a fighter just can't touch.

 

[Celtavian]

Uh, a little full of ourselves are we?

Alot of people are better than 28 or 32 points. Most people use that point level for game balance, but understand that it in no way simulates real common human attributes (At least I hope they don't think it simulates real common human attributes...that would really be selling the human race short).

That is very much the case. Pally and Monk both (and to a lesset extent Bard, Ranger and Druid) suffer from MAD: Multiple Attribute Dependency. At 25 points (which is the "standard" power level BTW) I and many other people I know believe that Pally and Monk are nearly unplayable. At 28-32 points they are, I think, quite well balanced against the other classes. Above 32 points they quickly get better and better until, around 38 points or so, they become very broken. Matter of fact many game mechanics start to break at about 40 points.

A 28 point Paladin will probably have a Cha of 14-16, and that is assuming he makes it his first or second stat. Meaning that his divine grace ability is worth about three feats. Nothing the Fighter can't keep up with. However, should he manage a Cha closer to 18-20 then all of a sudden Divine Grace becomes worth something more like six or eight feats (hard to judge since there is no "Improved Iron Will" feat). Now the Fighter might be starting to sweat it a little.

Personally, my preference is for games in the 28-32 range and I think the Paladin is just fine. Maybe even a little on the weak side since vampires and dragons aren't as common an enemy as a true neutral human fighter with a conflicting agenda. Obviously your experience is different.

I don't think D&D breaks down at high point levels. I do think it needs to be rebalanced. You can' t send PC's built on 40 plus points against NPC's built on 25 points and expect a hard encounter. Any DM that takes a little time to up the stats of the NPC's can easily challenge high point PC's. Magic items are more dangerous to game balance than stats.

 

[FireLance]

Frankly, there is only one person who can tell you how many evil opponents the party is going to face, how much of an advantage immunity to fear and disease is going to be, whether there are going to be large numbers of low-level undead to challenge the party, whether a specific feat is going to be useful, etc. And really, it's his job to ensure that every character gets his chance to shine in his area of specialty.

Of course, it kind of helps if the players try not to overlap in areas of speciality. A paladin in a party containing a Lawful Good cleric with the War and Destruction domains and a Lawful Good fighter specializing in mounted combat might still eke out a role as the party diplomat, but add a Neutral Good bard who has maxed out his Bluff, Diplomacy, Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) and Sense Motive skills and he might feel like the fourth wheel on a tricycle.

Personally, I think the game would be better served if all the effort that went into discussions of whether x is balanced were chanelled instead into coming up with ideas how x can play an interesting role in the party, or how the DM can come up with challenges that allow x to shine.

 

[Pielorinho]

Alot of people are better than 28 or 32 points. Most people use that point level for game balance, but understand that it in no way simulates real common human attributes (At least I hope they don't think it simulates real common human attributes...that would really be selling the human race short).

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I was under the impression that a score of 10-11 represented, by the rules, the average ability of a human being--as in, that's the baseline for the whole ability score system. If that's the case, then the average human should be built on something like a 15-point buy, with some humans with fewer points and some humans with more points.

It's impossible (again, by definition) for most people to be above average.

Daniel

edit: In the last sentence, assume that I'm using "median" for my definition of "average," and it makes sense. If you're talking about means, however, then theoretically you could have most people be above average by having a couple of real nincompoops wighing down the low end of things. Also, I screwed up a number above and corrected it.