The (quintessential) paladin prestige class

[Jerrid Al-Kundo]

I for one loathe childish ad-hominem insult, but is roleplayer really an insult?

I refer to the manner in which he uses it. First he uses the expression "truly a ROLE-PLAYER" (note the caps), and then follows it up with stating that SoaPM doesn't need rules. This statement, however, ignores the fact that these are indeed rules that are being discussed.

In fact, they are SoaPM's rules.

However, I could point everyone to page 8 of the DMG, where it describes the different style of play and the importance of rules/mechanical balance to them.

Kick in the Door: Balance most important.

Deep-Immersion: Balance least important.

Must every conversation take place on a forum be done with the assumption that the former is always the style being played?

Those who complain about the power of this class would seem to think so.

Quite correct, but the consensus (or at least, vast majority) seems to be against the prestige class as written.

Then don't use it.

I am with Lily on this one: a psion only really needs one or two decent stats that he can go to town on- granted, to garner the full utility of the class six may be required, but for this paladin at least five are required to even make it vaguely effective. A psion can be effective with just two good stats; this paladin demands five.

No, this paladin demands one to be slightly above average (Int), and can make use of another (Charisma), but really has the weight of dependance on 3 being high (Strength, Wisdom, Consistution).

Besides, the paladin makes the sacrifice- but what does he receive in turn?

What's on the Class Feature block. One would also assume, in a game where RP is more central than combat, that station and reward are also present. Of course, these are hard to quantify without making X amount of Y become an expectation, which I too would avoid.

I'd say likely that an easier solution would have been to simply say that no one can start as a Paladin and left the class alone.

Perhaps, but one must ask why he posted it on the boards in the first place in that case. If he is not willing to listen to criticism, he should have just introduced his ill-advised class to his game without even bothering the rest of us.

He has listened to criticism, just not to that criticism which focuses on power levels and numerical stacking.

 

[Lily Inverse]

Must every conversation take place on a forum be done with the assumption that the former is always the style being played?

Those who complain about the power of this class would seem to think so.

Even in the "deep emersion" playing style balance figures in. At some point all the negatives eventually equate to "This class is not suitable for Core D&D in any form." The vast majority here think that SoaPM's Paladin fits into that category, and have explained why.

No, this paladin demands one to be slightly above average (Int), and can make use of another (Charisma), but really has the weight of dependance on 3 being high (Strength, Wisdom, Consistution).

Two to survive to this level, one required, and then two to bring out the full potential of the PrC. 2 + 1 + 2 = 5. Also, Dexterity is a BAD dump stat for a front-line warrior, making it SIX stats that need to be at least average to have any hope of a viable character. This puts it PAST the likes of the Duelist, Dragon Disciple, and Geomancer in requirements, and is utterly impossible under any point-buy system. All for. . . . what? What wonderful abilities does this Paladin recieve for being such an exceptional individual who has trained to bring out his full potential in order to smite the heathens who threaten all that is good? I have yet to hear any answer other than "Well. . . . he spends so much time learning how to be a good Paladin that he doesn't get as much."

This makes being a Paladin an utterly foolish decision. Any individual wishing to serve his diety should take levels as a Cleric or Divine Champion instead.

What's on the Class Feature block. One would also assume, in a game where RP is more central than combat, that station and reward are also present. Of course, these are hard to quantify without making X amount of Y become an expectation, which I too would avoid.

Which, as we have pointed out, is not nearly enough to compensate such blindingly superhuman individuals as CAN become Paladins for doing so. It makes me wonder if SoaPM is making this class a punishment!

 

[Al]

I refer to the manner in which he uses it. First he uses the expression "truly a ROLE-PLAYER" (note the caps), and then follows it up with stating that SoaPM doesn't need rules. This statement, however, ignores the fact that these are indeed rules that are being discussed.

Fair enough. It was probably intended as an insult, but in the interest of fair play, you did nothing to chastise SoaPM when he denounced us as powergamers, munchkins, and stat-grinders. You cannot maintain a guise of neutrality and then attack one side yet not the other for exactly the same device.

In fact, they are SoaPM's rules.

True, but he presumably posted them here to get feedback. Can he blame us if the feedback is negative?

Deep-Immersion: Balance least important.

A sound point. But the same comment applies.

Must every conversation take place on a forum be done with the assumption that the former is always the style being played?

Nope, but balance is the only issue that the boards can really comment on. He posted the prestige class here presumably to check balance rather than the 'role-playing' element, which is insurmountable (and hence posting here would be pointless.)

No, this paladin demands one to be slightly above average (Int), and can make use of another (Charisma), but really has the weight of dependance on 3 being high (Strength, Wisdom, Consistution).

This adds up to five. But the objection not dealt with is why the abilities upon which the 'weight of dependance' (sic) is placed is not demanded as a prerequisite, but only which is of negligible usefulness or appropriateness is.

What's on the Class Feature block. One would also assume, in a game where RP is more central than combat, that station and reward are also present. Of course, these are hard to quantify without making X amount of Y become an expectation, which I too would avoid.

Well, what on the class features block is trivial in its importance, and actually worse than not attempting to surmount this class. Granted, there would be roleplaying benefits, but it seems illogical. Why would an organisation dedicate itself to 'serving' its god by actually making prospective candidates weaker? If they were truly trying to maximise their god's influence/power, they would not go for this prestige class and remain as a non-prestige organisation.

He has listened to criticism, just not to that criticism which focuses on power levels and numerical stacking.

I disagree. He has listened to no criticism whatsoever. He has failed repeatedly to deal with the points about the paladin's lack of niche compared with the Hospitaller and Templar. He has responded to fair criticism with insults. He has ignored the consenus of opinion: what criticisms has he listened to?

 

[Lily Inverse]

I would also like to point out that a low Dexterity is no good for a Paladin either, because it lowers that all-important AC. While heavy armor can compensate for an average Dexterity score, it cannot compensate for a below average one. Thus, this Paladin must essentially be average in one stat and above average in five others, utterly impossible to accomplish on any point-buy system without SOMETHING giving in.

Yes, I mentioned this before, but I thought it really bore repeating.

And I'd like to hear our original poster's opinion on this, although he seems to have stopped paying any attention whatsoever. His loss, if he can't take criticism. That's not to say I don't agree with his goals, I stated that I do. But I have come to think he is clearly going about them the wrong way. As a suggestion, drop the Leadership requirement! In its place, I would use a mounted combat feat to emphasize the usefulness of the mount. This would truly go a long way towards justifying the superhuman requirements that you have set up in statistics. If you are adamant about keeping leadership, then you almost certainly must get rid of Expertise and Improved Disarm and replace them with something far more reasonable and useful for the paladin to use. If he wants, I can generate a "typical" Paladin and Blacklguard with the standard layout, typical skills, etc. and only focus on the different feat trees and SHOW him what would happen when these two "equal opposites" meet. I don't believe it will be pretty for our Paladin friend.

 

[Jerrid Al-Kundo]

Fair enough. It was probably intended as an insult, but in the interest of fair play, you did nothing to chastise SoaPM when he denounced us as powergamers, munchkins, and stat-grinders. You cannot maintain a guise of neutrality and then attack one side yet not the other for exactly the same device.

I'm not neutral, however. I once took a 6-page grilling for daring to suggest that a less combat-oriented Rogue (ala no Sneak Attack) was feasible. Having been the target of such attacks (including the "real Role-Player" snub), I figure such folks are capable of defending themselves just fine.

True, but he presumably posted them here to get feedback. Can he blame us if the feedback is negative?

No, but he can blame y'all for repeating it continuously regardless of his own reasoning. Again, having read six pages about how sneak attack was a game necessity (which it isn't), I understand his position completely.

A sound point. But the same comment applies.

Ditto.

Nope, but balance is the only issue that the boards can really comment on. He posted the prestige class here presumably to check balance rather than the 'role-playing' element, which is insurmountable (and hence posting here would be pointless.)

Which is why, after SoaPM stated his reasoning, folks should have simply walked away from the thread.

This adds up to five. But the objection not dealt with is why the abilities upon which the 'weight of dependance' (sic) is placed is not demanded as a prerequisite, but only which is of negligible usefulness or appropriateness is.

+1 Skill Point a level isn't useful? It's part of the general balancing factor for Humans.

Well, what on the class features block is trivial in its importance, and actually worse than not attempting to surmount this class. Granted, there would be roleplaying benefits, but it seems illogical. Why would an organisation dedicate itself to 'serving' its god by actually making prospective candidates weaker? If they were truly trying to maximise their god's influence/power, they would not go for this prestige class and remain as a non-prestige organisation.

Again, though, weakness (and strength) is relative. It's also why after SoaPM posted his reasoning that folks should have walked away; Part of the benefits aren't quantifiable, which is all the rage in 3E.

I disagree. He has listened to no criticism whatsoever. He has failed repeatedly to deal with the points about the paladin's lack of niche compared with the Hospitaller and Templar. He has responded to fair criticism with insults. He has ignored the consenus of opinion: what criticisms has he listened to?

The second page of this thread contains a revision based on some criticism. What he has responded to with insults is words like weak, underpowered, and other catch phrases that, while perhaps not coming from a Power Gamer, are often the first complaints of a Power Gamer.

I feel that SoaPM stated his reasons for this class; Even pointed out that the Intelligence requirement was intentional. Once that happens, you either support, suggest or walk away. Telling someone their wrong, through whatever terms, is simply fanning flames (even if unintentional). About the only thing that's surprised me is that he didn't add Apsuman's suggested ability; I thought it was going to make an appearance.

Now, me, I wouldn't use it, but I stated back on Page 1 that I would be designing religion-specific. If for my campaign, I'd have added Single Out at 6th, and possibly a Bonus Feat or two, and boosted Lay on Hands. But as it's his, and I agree that his reasoning is fine for his game (which Elder Basilisk states as well on Page 2), I saw no reason to point such out.

Speaking of which...

Hey, Apsuman:

Mind if I use Single Out? If you want real name or e-mail address credit, e-mail me with the details. Otherwise, I'm just going to give credit to Apsuman from the ENWorld Boards. Kewl?

 

[Al]

I'm not neutral, however. I once took a 6-page grilling for daring to suggest that a less combat-oriented Rogue (ala no Sneak Attack) was feasible. Having been the target of such attacks (including the "real Role-Player" snub), I figure such folks are capable of defending themselves just fine.

That's the problem. Your past makes you automatically sympathetic to the side perceived to be roleplayers and against the perceived powergamers. You should take this example exclusively, and ask whether the criticisms really are valid. Further, you should ask whether valid queries about balance and/or game niche automatically makes people powergamers.

Incidentally, I thoroughly agree with regard to no sneak attack. To me, the sneak attack is peripheral to the rogue, rather than central, and only of foremost usage in a dungeon hack.

No, but he can blame y'all for repeating it continuously regardless of his own reasoning. Again, having read six pages about how sneak attack was a game necessity (which it isn't), I understand his position completely.

Yes, but the sneak attack is not central to the rogue. The paladin is a holy warrior and diplomat, and hence should have tools amply furnished to the task. It would be similar to the fighter without weapon proficiencies.

+1 Skill Point a level isn't useful? It's part of the general balancing factor for Humans.

I never said that it was useless, merely that it was of peripheral importance. And he himself admitted that Strength, Wisdom and Charisma were the three central stats- yet these are not demanded but Intelligence is. This is illogical.

Again, though, weakness (and strength) is relative. It's also why after SoaPM posted his reasoning that folks should have walked away; Part of the benefits aren't quantifiable, which is all the rage in 3E.

Weakness is relative to an extent- but in this case no one could assert that it is stronger. Whilst some benefits are indeed unquantifiable, this is no cause for a prestige class: simply build an organisation.

The second page of this thread contains a revision based on some criticism. What he has responded to with insults is words like weak, underpowered, and other catch phrases that, while perhaps not coming from a Power Gamer, are often the first complaints of a Power Gamer.

The 'revised' version had scant difference to the original. Your statement is true, but even the complaints of a Power Gamer have some validity: especially since the niche of this prestige class is already covered.

I feel that SoaPM stated his reasons for this class; Even pointed out that the Intelligence requirement was intentional. Once that happens, you either support, suggest or walk away. Telling someone their wrong, through whatever terms, is simply fanning flames (even if unintentional)

He stated his reasons, but they were logically flawed, especially the Intelligence requirement. I then proceeded to suggest: I suggested changing the Improved Disarm requirement. Telling someone that they are wrong is indeed fanning the flames; but explaining to them why they are wrong (as we all did) is part of the purpose of this boards- or did he merely post to garner admiration?

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Work a 60 hour week and the whole message board landscape changes. Okay folks, I'm haven't neglected this thread... I've been catching up on sleep. Let's see if I can dispel some of these falsities with a single post.

-----

Al.

You continue to labor under the misconception that I have stated "high Intelligence equates to being inspirational". Drop this line of thinking like a brick. I have explained it numerous times now, but any comprehension of this issue repeatedly escapes you. For the last time...

High intelligence does not equate to being inspirational, but low intelligence contributes to losing respect.

Hopefully this subtle distinction has revealed itself to you now.

As for the pointing out the difference between paladins, hospitallers, and templars (et al) that work has already been done for me. Read their descriptive texts. If those texts do not justify their differences enough for you, then you condemn yourself to making power gaming generalizations based on abilities (without me having to type another word on the subject).

-----

To the general dispute about good attribute scores, a paladin only needs three of them.

Charisma most of all, for divine grace, laying on hands, smiting, and turning undead.

Strength, for combat.

Wisdom, for spells.

Simple.

A starting Intelligence of 12 with a level-dependant attribute increase is more than adequate for this prestige class. I've spelled the math out. I've done the work. Try as anybody might, you can't deny this. A score is 12 is only slightly above average.

Constitution is neither here nor there. Extra Hit Points are always useful, but this is a universal truth for any character. Yes, a paladin is front line fighter, and so must sponge up damage. Guess what... that's why they have a d10 for Hit Points, laying on hands, and healing spell access.

Dexterity is definitely not required for any character class that can wear heavy armor.

-----

Why have I created a prestige class (game mechanic solution) to fix a perceived role-playing problem? I already told you! Geeze, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. For a group of people who claim I am oblivious to your comments (blatantly untrue; thanks for noticing Jerrid Al-Kundo) you sure are blind to my comments. Allow me to repeat the rationale that appears on the top of this very page...

Originally posted by Sonofapreacherman
…if having to "earn" passage into the paladin prestige class through feat and skill choices makes characters think about what it means to be a paladin (even a little bit) then my work on this prestige class has been justified.

-----

Lastly and most importantly...

The Leadership feat is one of the most powerful in the game of Dungeons and Dragons, and no mistake.

No, you can't cleave through a row of neatly lined up enemies with it. No, you can't sacrifice combat effectiveness to maximize your damage with it. But wait...

...what you can do is call on hundreds of followers to rally around your banner and support your cause against evil. And let's not make light of that cohort either. Is it underhanded for a paladin to receive help from their cohort during a fight against evil? Underhanded? Hell no. It's openhandedly welcome! Evil is evil. Stamp it out with all your available might, and that most definitely includes your cohort.

Moreover, *any* help in the fight against evil is welcome. This is yet another quality that exemplifies paladins. It is the their ongoing quest to empower commoners in their own struggles against evil. Beyond that, it is also the paladin's heroic obligation to single out the leader of such evil and dispatch them personally (hence my liking of the "Single Out" idea Apsuman created, albeit renamed "Honorable Combat"). So yes, to answer that question, I do intend to include it in my next paladin revision.

Any more questions?

 

[Al]

Welcome back, SoaPM. I fear that the whole thread may have got rather heated last time you were here, so let's drop the insults shall we?

I do not labour under the impression that a high Int is not *desirable* for the paladin, and indeed it is preferable. Indeed, a low Int will lose some respect. But what of an average Int, say 10-12? The main objection is that whilst Intelligence is demanded by the class, the self-professed central abilites are not. I would be far happier if you actually added the requirements: Strength, Wisdom and Charisma 15+ (to give them relative importance to Intelligence) since these are the supposed prime abilites of the paladin. At the current, an Int of 13 is the only required statistic. Thus, an Int 13 Cha 1 Str 3 Wis 3 character could qualify; but an Int 12 Cha 18 Str 18 Wis 18 character could not. This seems illogical- especially as the latter is clearly more suited to paladinhood.

As for hospitallers and so forth, I must make a confession at this juncture. I don't have DotF with me right now, but from what I recall they are nigh identical (indeed, I know DotF from a friend's book). When I queried as to the differences, it was an honest question. In the absence of such knowledge, the general perception of the Hospitaller/Templar seemed too similar to the proposed paladin.

Your rationale behind explaining why you created a prestige class for a roleplaying problem does not do it justice. Why are the prerequisites skewed towards an Int based requirement? The 'core abilities' of paladinhood are Str/Wis/Cha. Surely requirements based on these would be more appropriate to candidates 'considering what it means to be a paladin' (such as the Divine Feats from DotF)?

As for Leadership, it is indeed powerful. I did not object to it on power grounds, but on RP grounds. Many of the 'paladins' of legend have been of the questing variety rather than the 'running-the-show' variety. Very few had armies of retainers and cohorts. Yet this prerequisites nonchalantly dismisses this archetype in favour of the latter. I find that hard to justify- on roleplaying grounds. If you want the paladin to be a 'leader' (small 'l') then a Charisma prerequisite would be more appropriate.

 

[Lily Inverse]

First, I would argue that Leadership is hardly automatically "incredibly powerful." A lot depends on your style of game. If your character isn't the type to "settle down" Leadership has little use, as the economics of maintaining a huge army on the road simply break down. NO "questing Paladin" would want this feat, as to maintain his followers would require massive pillaging and sacking of the countryside -- hardly Paladinlike! Thus, Leadership necessarily ties any good character down to one location, except during a war or other unusual circumstances. Unless your vision of Paladins includes their being completely tied to the defense of their homelands, Leadership is utterly inappropriate.

Secondly, let's look at your Paladin, his requirements, and come up with the number of points he needs.

With his main statistics, we'll just assume an average of 16. This may be higher than you expect, it may be lower.

Con and Dexterity: You seem to assume your Paladin class has no use for these. If so, you will have a nasty shock when you have Fighters with less than 12 in each try to take things on. 12s in both,. for an average between the two scores.

Intelligence. Another 12, with the intention of putting it up to 13 at 4th level.

16, 12, 12, 16, 12, 16. Referring to Table 2-1 on page 20 of the DMG, we can see that a 16 costs 10 points, and a 12 costs 4. The total adds up to a whopping 42 points. Looking just below this chart we can see that a high-powered campaign is made on characters with only 32 points.

For the sake of argument, we'll lower the average of the Paladin's required ability scores to 15. Personally, I would not go any lower. You're still talking about some incredibly powerful people here, because that only puts you within the 32 point limit on that page!

This is precisely the reason there ARE "dump-stats." All this, without an adequete explanation for WHY a high Int is a requirement, and a high Str, Wis, or Cha is not.

And let me dispell you of another one of your dearly-held illusions. A 13 is decently high. In a medieval world, you will likely find MANY more 13 Str people than 13 Int people. Heck, many people TODAY find a 13 Int equivalent (130 IQ) scary when confronted with someone applying it properly. It's not genius-level, no, but it's really quite uncommon. Yet you insist that your Paladins MUST be at this level, but can have a 3 Charisma if the player should so desire.

 

[reapersaurus]

(I'm trying to avoid the already-covered issues and ask a question that MAY get addressed)

sonofa:
Why do you insist on stating that unless a paladin has a 12 INT and then devotes one of his precious attribute-boosts to INT, than he is plainly a paladin that will be played as Lawful Stupid?

Just because you haven't seen a paladin properly played does NOT mean that you should "legislate" a high-INT paladin.

An 8 INT, 14 WIS paladin should not be roleplayed as a dumb, simplistic warrior of faith.
INT really is overly-valued by most players, IMO.
WIS really helps you to be a good adventurer.
INT helps you solve puzzles and learn things.