Paladins: Why are they balanced?

[Hussar]

I would definitely agree with S'mon that paly's could use a bit of a power up. Then again, all the melee classes could use probably use some work. There's a pile of variant rules out there that help out the paly. My personal fav is replacing the mount with a summonable sword or ally.

 

[Nightfall]

Hussar,

My only gripe with paladins as it stands is there's no GOOD way (other than Dragon 349's suggestion for class replacement) to deal with non-mounted paladins. While Charging paladin in PHB II is alright and indeed the Dungeonscape ones were decent, I truly felt it was/is a poor way to compensate a paladin's "power" by granting those abilities over/instead of "mount." power.

 

[The Iron Mark]

I think they are a bit weak; it's too easy for them to be outfought by a Cleric, which I think is where the comparison should be. WoTC talk about balance, but every game I've seen, Clerics & Druids are far more powerful than Paladins. Pals shouldn't dominate the game but I think they ought to be mechanically one of the stronger classes, not currently the case. Their spell use is weak; one thing I've done is replace it with Spell Resistance, which seems to work well.

Almost everyone is weaker than CoDzilla.

 

[Victim]

For the same reason that clerics aren't equally pumped up (and more dieties are likely to have cleric champions than pally ones) - there must be some kind of constraint on how much dieties can interfere with that kind of stuff. Perhaps the constraint is from the whole group of dieties limiting each other. Maybe the mortal is limited in awesomeness by his own spiritual potential. It's not that the god isn't letting the low level cleric cast True Res or Miracle, the cleric's ability is the limit.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Why are paladins balanced with the other classes?

Because unbalanced classes aren't much fun unless the game is specifically set up for it - like Ars Magica with its mages and grogs.

 

[hopeless]

Reg: Paladins

Sorry to say this but my impression of paladins is that the most important part is often the one lacking and that is the player running them.

I've have always run characters on the basis that actions speak louder than words and see that if they character is seen as truly good and inspirational people will change for the better.
The dm i ran a paladin with believes paladins should be crusading knights with absolutely no respect nor showing humility to anyone they consider beneath them especially when it concerned gloryhounding.
The only other time this character was played by someone who turned the paladin's code into a truly extraordinary talent bypassing several traps I had planned and executed by means that involved no looking at the dm's notes (which i took steps to memorise due to an experience a decade ago involving a game based on the original cartoon series) and still this was the second best portrayal I've seen of a paladin for another player under 2nd edition rules had really bad luck with initial funds for his characters equipment and started off wearing leather armour and ran his character whilst so effected unlike the dm i mentioned above who ran a Paladin in 3.0 Greyhawk game and persuaded the dm to let him sue 1st edition rules for his equipment for his noble born paladin so he started off with a set of full plate and a masterwork greatsword... didn't stop him grabbing a +1 ring of protection my halfling offered to the monk and the later claimed nobody wanted it ignoring the fact that wasn't the case.
Sorry but I don't see even the 3.5 paladin as over powered... my problem lies with the fact their code is poorly represented and abused by players who really don't have a clue and dm's are left with even less of an understanding of what constitutes as warrior of god when if that was actully the case shouldn't there be paladins' of all the gods?
Why only LG when its clear most can't run that character as LG?

 

[shilsen]

Sorry to say this but my impression of paladins is that the most important part is often the one lacking and that is the player running them.

I've have always run characters on the basis that actions speak louder than words and see that if they character is seen as truly good and inspirational people will change for the better.
The dm i ran a paladin with believes paladins should be crusading knights with absolutely no respect nor showing humility to anyone they consider beneath them especially when it concerned gloryhounding.
The only other time this character was played by someone who turned the paladin's code into a truly extraordinary talent bypassing several traps I had planned and executed by means that involved no looking at the dm's notes (which i took steps to memorise due to an experience a decade ago involving a game based on the original cartoon series) and still this was the second best portrayal I've seen of a paladin for another player under 2nd edition rules had really bad luck with initial funds for his characters equipment and started off wearing leather armour and ran his character whilst so effected unlike the dm i mentioned above who ran a Paladin in 3.0 Greyhawk game and persuaded the dm to let him sue 1st edition rules for his equipment for his noble born paladin so he started off with a set of full plate and a masterwork greatsword... didn't stop him grabbing a +1 ring of protection my halfling offered to the monk and the later claimed nobody wanted it ignoring the fact that wasn't the case.
Sorry but I don't see even the 3.5 paladin as over powered... my problem lies with the fact their code is poorly represented and abused by players who really don't have a clue and dm's are left with even less of an understanding of what constitutes as warrior of god when if that was actully the case shouldn't there be paladins' of all the gods?
Why only LG when its clear most can't run that character as LG?

You know that not capitalizing or using periods is CE, right?

 

[Vrecknidj]

I've always found that a paladin, in order to be a "strong" class, requires a bit more tweaking on the DM's part than I'd like. Without a mount, without throwing occasional disease at the party, without fighting a substantial number of Evil enemies, the paladin becomes a little less enjoyable.

One DM I know gives paladins d12 hit dice and Toughness for free at first level. His own take is that the paladin should be the sort of ultimate representation of the guy who never strikes first but who is capable of finishing the fights he does participate in. In order for that to be the case, the guy needs more hit points.

Dave

 

[Aaron L]

For Paladins in my game world, I use the Unearthed Arcana Prestige Class Paladin instead, altering it so it has the Knights Challenge ability (from the Knight Class in PHB II) as an additional prerequisite, and then allow Paladin levels to stack with Knight levels for all purposes of the Knights Challenge ability. Thus, in a small way, remaking the 1E Cavalier-Paladin for 3E.

I find it gives Paladins the boost in power I want for them, while at the same time making them all be Knights first, then Clerics, then Paladins, equally beholden to King and God, which is the way Paladins work in my world. Paladins aren't the special chosen holy warriors of a god in my word, granted their abilities out of thin air; they are the epitome of Knighthood, who train harder than anyone else, go through Clerical training and become ordained, and only then become Paladins, they have to learn their abilities through blood, sweat and tears, and then have to constantly strive to maintain their edge and level of excellence to retain their Paladinhood.

 

[Endur]

Give the Paladin a Holy Sword. Balance problem fixed.