Paladins: Why are they balanced?

[SteveC]

On the other hand, since the paladin is mechanically balanced without their code, the GM is under no obligation to screw them with it to make up for their extra abilities. How problematic the code is mostly up to the GM. And there's always a phylactory of faithfulness.

This is a good point, but I have never seen a GM run a game with a paladin in it where the code didn't strongly affect not only the paladin, but the entire game. If the threads on Enworld are any indication, I'm not the only one.

So if a GM is not looking to have the code be a major problem for the character, then there's no real issue, but the code is still there, with mechanics behind it...and anything that affects a character mechanically one way should have a corresponding benefit the other way. (In my opinion, of course).

--Steve

 

[Andor]

Another idea would be to move paladin up to a PrC and not a base class. While I don't mind the pally being a base class, I can certainly see the reasons for doing so.

On a side note Andor - why only paladins though? Sure, Pally's are the chosen of their diety (or force or philosophy or whatever), but, then again, so are clerics, druids and rangers. Heck, why should a paladin be higher up the food chain than a cleric? The paly's just a foot soldier, the cleric is the one running the faith. Wouldn't that mean that clerics should get a big ol' dose of power?

The Cleric is already the most powerful of the base classes, in contention with the Druid. What more could he need? Futhermore the cleric has no mechanical downside to being unclericish. Sure the GM can mess with a cleric of hironeous who makes a hobby out of torching ophanages, but there is no call for him to do so by the RAW. The Paladin is held to a higher standard then anybody. Hmmm. On second thought there is one other class that can srew itself without GM intervention. The druid, who only loses his powers for 24 hours, and is in the top 2 in any event.

And the Paladin is not the footsoldier of the faith IMHO, he is it's general. Every town has a Cleric (Unless you're in Eberron where the average village priest is an expert or adept.), but Paladins are few and far between. How many NPC paladins have you encountered who weren't actively campaigning?

 

[Endur]

Bah. Not available before 14th level under DMG wealth guidelines, and with typical 'no one item should be more than 25% of your wealth' limitations, not available before 19th level.

I said give. I know not these wealth limitations you speak of.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

This is a good point, but I have never seen a GM run a game with a paladin in it where the code didn't strongly affect not only the paladin, but the entire game. If the threads on Enworld are any indication, I'm not the only one.

I ran a game where a player played a paladin, and it wasn't too much of a problem. Okay, he wasn't the only thing that kept the whole group from going berserk and kill everyone.

In fact, the player applied the code to his character more strongly than I did: After they saved a village once, some of the female villagers (those of the young and comely persuasion) wanted to.. express their gratitude. Some nice, no-strings-attached one-night stands (they were heroes, and there was no character with a low cha score in there to boot).

The paladin refused, and spent the night with his horse (no, not like that, though the rest wound him up about that for days to come). Next morning, when he prayed to Lathander (his patron deity), the paladin felt that even his deity was surprised at this refusal of a good time.

So if a GM is not looking to have the code be a major problem for the character, then there's no real issue, but the code is still there, with mechanics behind it...and anything that affects a character mechanically one way should have a corresponding benefit the other way. (In my opinion, of course).

It's bad to balance roleplaying disadvantage with rules advantages, though.

I might add that even though paladins are subject to a more strict definition of LG, most characters in your average campaign are good aligned, including most clerics, and they stand to lose something, too, if they commit evil deeds (especially those clerics!)

Hmmn, I think this is a very good question to ask, because the paladin should be mechanically more powerful than other classes.

No, he shouldn't. It's a base class, and all base classes should be about the same.

Why is that? Because they are unique in having a mechanical penalty for not being roleplayed properly.

Well, we already heard that this is something that the DM will enforce or not, and, as I said, the GM can punish everyone for bad roleplaying.

I'll say it again: Paladins either get equal treatment, or they become a PrC (personally, that fits the concept better, anyway).

3E designers went out of their way to say that mechanical benefits shouldn't be given to balance roleplaying penalties, and that makes a lot of sense to me. The problem in the paladin's case is that he has a mechanical penalty for roleplaying, but has no corresponding bonus to go with it. Or at least that's the way it seems to me: I would say that if you took away the alignment and code restrictions for the paladin, he would still be perfectly balanced with other classes out of the PHB.

Well, if you are going to enforce the roleplaying restriction the paladin has, give him roleplaying benefits: A paladin will certainly be more highly regarded by the common people (they might suspect others of acting only for their own good, but the paladin clearly does it for the common good!), and so will the authorities. After all, they see a paladin who still has his class abilities and they just know that he's one of the good guys.

 

[Felix]

Another idea would be to move paladin up to a PrC and not a base class. While I don't mind the pally being a base class, I can certainly see the reasons for doing so.

This job is very well done by the Pious Templar PrC, which has the added benefit of being able to be taken by characters of every devotion. If I were to ban the Paladin base class, this is what I'd use.

[/aside]

 

[drothgery]

I said give. I know not these wealth limitations you speak of.

A lot of weak classes are fairly balanced or even strong if they have an extra 130,000 gp worth of magic items beyond what the other PCs have.

 

[Crothian]

A lot of weak classes are fairly balanced or even strong if they have an extra 130,000 gp worth of magic items beyond what the other PCs have.

With that kind of money, I think a commoner could be a problem!!

 

[SteveC]

No, he shouldn't. It's a base class, and all base classes should be about the same.

I just wanted to address this issue: if the paladin has mechanical drawbacks associated to the code, he should get mechanical advantages for having the code.

As I wrote in my first post, the designers of 3x decided that balancing roleplaying disadvantages with mechanical advantages was a bad idea, and I agree. If the paladin class simply talked about the code as being something the paladin would try and follow (i.e., as a roleplaying notion) then there would be no need to balance them mechanically. Since they can lose their class abilities if they violate the code, well, they should also get something back for it. To me it's just that simple.

Now as you suggest, it may be just as simple as giving them expanded authority and respect from the populace, but it needs to be something real, since the consequences for failure are also real. Putting the idea that a mechanical disadvantage balances a mechanical advantage into the paladin makes the class balanced from, well, a mechanical standpoint.

Now it may be that the design of the paladin is already supposed to be better than a normal character class, but honestly I don't see that, and I haven't seen anyone argue it yet.

--Steve

 

[Stalker0]

With divine feats, paladins are just fine in my book.

The things is they only have slightly less offense than other fighter types, but their defense is awesome. They have superior saves, combined with their ability to heal makes them very tough to kill. Throw in divine feats, and you can pump up the offense or gain even stronger defense.

 

[mmadsen]

Shouldn't the Paladin be the most powerful of the core classes...?

Power is meant to be defined by level, irrespective of class (or race).

If the most powerful individuals in your game world are paladins, make sure to have them be high-level paladins. You don't have to make the paladin class any more powerful.

If the most powerful individuals in your game world are elves who have been touched by the light of Ilúvatar, make sure to have them be high-level elves. You don't have to make the elf race any more powerful.