Why are paladins so dumb?

[reapersaurus]

I thought that the mantra when designing classes was NOT to have roleplaying considerations affect the analysis of balance?

I am not proposing that a paladin is useless, OR that they are not fantaatic to roleplay.
They are roleplaying MEISTERS, hell, I love playing one.

But I want to get people realizing that their class abilities are so overrated and specialized, that IMO a serious look should be taken to see if they are underpowered when compared to other classes and class combinations.

And if Holy Sword is considered a benefit of the class, than you MUST remember to divide that benefit by about 15 (since it takes 15 levels of straight-paladin-class to get it).

Lord Pendragon - I did not mean to imply that your version of a paladin is a one-trick pony.

I'm saying that ONE smite per day does not equal a "butt-kicking warrior for goodness".
After that one smite, he's worse than a fighter against even the most dire of evil.

Doesn't that bother anyone else, that evil only has to worry about ONE SHOT a day from a paladin - the most supposedly effective fighter of evil in the game?

And IMO it isn't very effective to combine with Power Attack, because in practice, any time a paladin smites, he'd better be DARNED sure he hits - he can't risk squeaking a couple of pouints of Power Attack out of it, because if he doesn't hit, he's wasted his one shot per day against evil, and the "big damage bonus" is wasted completely.

Lord Pendragon - in my eyes, I don't see the paladin as having to study to gain knowledge in religion and nobility and war.
He's LIVING it - experiencing first-hand those arenas which should contribute to his knowledge in those areas.

Same with Diplomacy (if you play a paladin that yearns for peace.)

But I'm casually thinking of a rules variant to 3E anyway...
One that actually grants *gasp* free skills based on your class.
If you're a Ranger, you'd get Wilderness Lore, etc ranks free.
If you're a Bard, you'd gain free rank of Perform... etc, etc.

I think the skills system in 3E is way too dependant on the book-learning INT score (which as has been demonstrated in this thread often is discriminatory towards paladins due to their high attribute requirements) to create a well-rounded and realistic character that matches their class.

Thoughts?
(I hope this is not too OT - i think it's very applicable to the paladin-INT discussion)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: I mourn the death of role-playing.

Let me see if I have this right.

1) Divine Health is useless because you seldom need it in a fight.

2) Cure disease is useless because you seldom need it in a fight.

3) Detect Evil is useless because you seldom need it in a fight.

Does no one role-play any more?

...

Just because you say (and it's only assertion) that an ability is useless in combat doesn't actually make it useless.

You raise a good point. But roleplaying as a balancing factor cuts both ways.

(1) Any class can roleplay the stalwart hero ridding the land of evil. And the abilities you mention are not noticeably valuable to those ends.

(2) Certainly having a better Int and picking up Sense Motive can easily be much more valuable than Detect Evil, at least if you do a decent amount of roleplaying.

(3) Why not play a Cleric1/Fightern whose character has sworn a blood oath to honorably defend the weak and innocent? Then I get to have more offense and defense in combat, similar defense and spells. I have better stats because I not (more or less) required to have a great Charisma. At higher levels I make up for less spells by picking up wands and other spell completion items. The only thing I miss out on is the Warhorse which in some campaigns is no loss at all.

(4) The Paladin is practically required to throw himself into the melee meatgrinder so his combat abilities are merely a matter of life and death. I can assure this little detail does matter.


I do have a pet peeve that the majority of people who like to talk up Paladin abilities have never actually played one. They are in no meaningful way more powerful than a vanilla Fighter, never have been, although in many situations they are more useful. Even parts of DotF betray ignorance on this point.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Okay, first off:

Sorry if my last post was not-user friendly. It was late and I was getting lazy. I will from now on attempt to state my opinion instead of criticizing other's points exclusively. With that in mind, let me explain my point of view:


1) This is the DnD Rules Forum. I am assuming that everyone advocating a rules change wants to make that rule a permanent addition to DnD. If this is not the case, then those are house rules and belong in that forum.

1a) Those wishing to alter the rules permanently have the burden of proof to show that the rules are "broken" for most games, not just their campaign(s).

1b) Defenders of the rules do not have the burden of proof. They do not have to show that the rules are "fixed" in all instances, just the instances that they are aware of.

1c) I like House Rules. I have lots of HRs for my campaign. In fact, I discarded cross-class skills in my campaign. But I do not consider cross-class skills "broken". They are good if you have the assumptions the game designers had. I also attempted to see the possible balance changes that could occur and fix them beforehand.


2) I disagree that a Paladin has to have more "ability score requirements" to be an effective member of a party.

2a) A Paladin gains more from having multiple "average" stats than a few spectatular stats.

Example with 32 point buy:

Paladin: 14 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 14 Wis, 14 Chr

Fighter: 18 Str, 12 Dex, 16 Con, 8 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Chr


3) The abilities of ANY class are only useful if the DM says so.

3a) A Paladin's abilities are useful in my campaigns.


4) I do not agree that Intellegence is less effective than Strength. Every low ability score should be penalized to the degree with which it is abnormal.


5) I do not agree with increasing the # of skill points a class receives. Why? Three reasons:

5a) In DnD, Versatility always comes at the price of Specialization.

Example: If a DM were to give 1st level Cleric spells to every class and give a Cleric 2 extra 1st level spells, both would benefit, but the Fighter would benefit more than the Cleric because the fighter gained more Versatility than the Cleric.

5b) Just because DnD has class lists, does not mean that every skill should be maxed to capacity.

Meaning: A Rogue has 31 class skills. If the designers had intended all 31 class skills to be maxed, they would have given the Rogue 31 skill points per level. At 1st level, if the Rogue puts 1 point into all 31 skills, the Rogue is going to be less effective at each individual skill than a specialist. Why?

Versatility comes at the price of Specialization.

5c) Lord Pendragon said it better than I could:

The paladin as written can do all these things. They're untrained skills, which means that any PC can do them. Do I think a paladin can climb as well as a monk? No.
Or swim as well as a barbarian? No.
Or spot like a ranger? No.
Or for god's sake Sense Motive like a rogue? No.

These skills are part of the training and way of life of other classes. That's why those classes are better at them than the average joe (represented by skill ranks above and beyond an untrained check.) The paladin doesn't receive training to climb better, swim stronger, spot more keenly, or sense someone's hidden motives any more than his innate wisdom allows him.

-Lord Pendragon


6) Versatility is a virtue in DnD.

Example: If we have the Fighter-Mage-Thief-Cleric party, and the Cleric drops, then the party cannot function, because the party cannot heal. If we have a Paladin-Mage-Thief-Cleric party, the Versatility the Paladin provides balances out the lack of a Specialized Fighter-Tank.


7) I do not think the Cleric is balanced.

I believe the Cleric is the most powerful class in DnD.
If one disregards the Cleric and looks at all of the other classes, all 10 of them are more or less balanced with each other. The only thing the Cleric cannot do is Disable Device, which is why a powergaming group needs a token Rogue. That is why I disregard "why don't you just play a F/C?" attacks against the Paladin.


8) I have played a Paladin. It is my favorite class.
.
.
.
.
.
That's it for now, this post was getting too long and people are lazy.

 

[Archer]

If you want to use the DotF feats like Divine Might and Divine Shield you need a high charisma because those feats grow exponentially in power as your charisma rises. If you have 14 cha you get +2 AC and +2 dam for 2 round, 5x per day, if you have 30 charisma you get +10 AC and/or +10 dam for 10 rounds, 13x per day. Each point of charisma bonus is equal to a feat just for save bonuses alone.

I think a paladin does much better with 18 cha, 14 str, 14 con, 12 wis, 8 int and dex. He does best with another -4 int and +4 dex if that was allowed under 32 point buy. That is the whole point of the thread. You are trading 2 skill points per level for +2 to all saves, +2 to hit with smite and double the lay on hands ability, +2 turning power and +2 turn attempts per day plus the previously mentioned feats. That looks like a simple choice to me. 2 skill points per level loses against +1 hit/dam or +1 hp per level in my book as well.

 

[enrious]

Re: Re: I mourn the death of role-playing.

Ridley, first off let me say that I'm glad you've responded civilly.

I see that my post could have set people off; that was not my intention.

I'm glad to see it stay friendly.

Now on to your counter-points:

You raise a good point. But roleplaying as a balancing factor cuts both ways.

(1) Any class can roleplay the stalwart hero ridding the land of evil. And the abilities you mention are not noticeably valuable to those ends.

Any class can play the role. The paladin is required to. Subtle difference, but a big one, IMO.

I disagree with your assesment of the abilities' lack of value in serving as the Paladin-with-no-name figure.

I can envision many role-playing reasons how he can be more of a hero than a fighter or even a cleric.

(2) Certainly having a better Int and picking up Sense Motive can easily be much more valuable than Detect Evil, at least if you do a decent amount of roleplaying.

I think we're about to switch positions for a minute. Detect evil has more combat/danger potential than Sense Motive, I think.

Now, back to normal. Sense Motive might have more role-playing use than Detect Evil. I'm not convinced because much of it has to do with the party, DM, and so forth, but I think you have a valid point nontheless.

On the other hand, the paladin is not limited to DE or SM to find out information - paladins can use Diplomacy for example, aided by a typically high CHR.

(3) Why not play a Cleric1/Fightern whose character has sworn a blood oath to honorably defend the weak and innocent? Then I get to have more offense and defense in combat, similar defense and spells. I have better stats because I not (more or less) required to have a great Charisma. At higher levels I make up for less spells by picking up wands and other spell completion items. The only thing I miss out on is the Warhorse which in some campaigns is no loss at all.

The loss of the warhorse would include my paladin as well.

Why not? Depends on the campaign - in most, I think, the average peasant knows a paladin is true to his word and upholds justice.

They may not love and trust the fighter as much as they do the paladin.

The paladin would have more access to positive energy (turning/channeling), built in healing, immunity to lycanthropy, if not the mount then it's replacement, and more than likely staunch allies (in the form of other paladins).

*shrug* Am I saying it's better or what than what you suggest? No, you have to weigh whether it's worth it to you to give up those paladin abilities for the ones you list.

(4) The Paladin is practically required to throw himself into the melee meatgrinder so his combat abilities are merely a matter of life and death. I can assure this little detail does matter.

In most circumstances, I agree. He's granted the built in ability to heal himself, get better saving throws, and if high enough cast healing magic on himself. Add on that a fighter's BAB and some feats that can make dealing out damage easier (by channeling positive energy) and you get someone that can stand in melee like a fighter.

The way the two stand in melee will be different, but the paladin is no pushover by any stretch of the imagination.

I do have a pet peeve that the majority of people who like to talk up Paladin abilities have never actually played one. They are in no meaningful way more powerful than a vanilla Fighter, never have been, although in many situations they are more useful. Even parts of DotF betray ignorance on this point.

I agree with you to a point (I personally think the Smite Evil as written is next to useless) but I submit that there is more to a paladin than numbers and dice.

I have found that some of the things that don't look so hot on paper have saved my paladin's bacon, such as Divine Charm and Lay on Hands.

Besides, I don't see anywhere where it is said that a paladin was supposed to be more powerful than a fighter, only different.

 

[enrious]

I thought that the mantra when designing classes was NOT to have roleplaying considerations affect the analysis of balance?

It could be.

However, I don't think a paladin is stronger or better at melee than a fighter.

I do think that they are mostly even, however.

I am not proposing that a paladin is useless, OR that they are not fantaatic to roleplay.
They are roleplaying MEISTERS, hell, I love playing one.

Gasp, not you reaper! How does the helmet fit over your horns?

But I want to get people realizing that their class abilities are so overrated and specialized, that IMO a serious look should be taken to see if they are underpowered when compared to other classes and class combinations.

They might be. They might be just right for some campaigns.

What I would agree with you wholeheartedly is the need for advice or rules for customizing paladins, that way the player can decide that Smite Evil is useless.

Paladins shouldn't have the versatility that fighters do, but they should have more than they have now.

And if Holy Sword is considered a benefit of the class, than you MUST remember to divide that benefit by about 15 (since it takes 15 levels of straight-paladin-class to get it).

Doesn't that bother anyone else, that evil only has to worry about ONE SHOT a day from a paladin - the most supposedly effective fighter of evil in the game?

<raises hand>

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Archer--

I disagree with your analysis because:

1) Defenders of the Faith is not Core and as such has little, if any, bearing in this discussion.

I could easily make up equivalent feats using Intellegence, however, it would also have no bearing in this discussion.


2) You are correct if you look at it by the strict interpretation of the numbers you have shown. I think most people use this tactic as well: min/maxing Charisma while neglecting Intellegence and/or Dexterity. Which leads us to the point of this thread: people play this way because it gives them the most numbers, while not necessarily being the most effective Paladin.

It is not a simple choice, however, because you have downplayed the penalties associated with being an idiotic, though likeable, oaf. I do not agree that the only penalties for having a 4 Intellegence, are a lack of skill points. A -3 to all Int checks and Int skill checks is also a deciding factor.

In addition, all NPCs and PCs will treat the low Intellegence PC as if they are an idiot. Since this is not a measureable trait in DnD, most DMs do not enforce it.

However, I am not of the camp that says balance should only occur by the numbers. Roleplaying aspects must also be a part of the balance issue. Alignment restrictions are a good example of this. The code of ethics for the Paladin is as well.

Using this balance tool, I have found that low Intellegence, or low anything , PCs tend to suffer in my campaigns. If a PC has a good ability score, they are exceptional; if they have a bad ability score, they can't carry anything, sneak, take a blow to the head, figure out a puzzle, find the secret door, or bluff the NPC.

 

[Artoomis]

So, The Souljourner, what did you decide to do?

I spent a lot of time on that prestige class, I'd like to know if anyone is using my work to their advantage.