Why are paladins so dumb?

[reapersaurus]

Actually, my Paladin has an int of 12 and a dex of 10. Why? Because of skill points.

As a Paladin, certain skills are almost required. to wit:

Knowledge, Religion
Heal
Ride
Dilpomacy

And that does not include listen, spot or search, useful skills for ALL characters.

[grouse] Does anyone else think that the incredible lack of skill points, (especially for the 2 skill point classes) is a major problem in 3E in making a well-rounded, realistic character?

Does anyone else have a problem with paladins only getting 2 skill points/level?
I think of them as Artoomis does: with those exact skills as almost a must (at the minimum).
And the Listen and Spot : geez, the paladin may as well be a commoner for how bad he has to be at it.

It just further illustrates the need for the House Rule that grants +2 skill points to all classes across the board.
I also recommend Karin's Dad's suggestion of free Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive skills to all adventurers every 3rd level. [/grouse]

 

[Crothian]

That's the great thing about d20. If you feel you need a higher amount of skill points, place a higher ability score in intelligence. Personally, I think a Paladin should max out Ride, have a few ranks in Religion (you don't need to be an expert to fiught evil), may be a few in heal (magical healing is always better anyway), and some in diplomacy. I don't think they all need to be maxed.

Personally, as a Paladin I go low Dex. I'm going to be wearing Heavy Armor anyone.

 

[reapersaurus]

That's the great thing about d20. If you feel you need a higher amount of skill points, place a higher ability score in intelligence.
Personally, as a Paladin I go low Dex. I'm going to be wearing Heavy Armor anyone.

Then we're right back to where this thread started:
a complaint about how Paladins (and Monks) have so many high ability score requirements.
And how INT was discussed as being the only one that is 'dump'able.

I'm not saying you can't make a paladin that has adequate skills by putting points into INT.
I'm saying that _I_ don't believe you should have to to have adequate skills.
There's no overriding REASON why WotC made the paladin (or any class, for that matter) only get 2 skill points/level.
They just threw a dart on the wall, and said "Let's make it 2".

A paladin's abilities don;t take practice to get better.
Lay on Hands, Smite, Remove Disease, and Mount progression are all simply granted by their diety, or by inner strength of character.

Is +1 BAB per level really the reason why they only got 2 skill points per level?
Oh, wait: Barbarians and Rangers both get 4, so I guess not.
A fighter gets 2 skill points arguably because he gets so many feats.
(Why he doesn't have a more expanded skill list is beyond me, though)

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

"I'm not saying you can't make a paladin that has adequate skills by putting points into INT.
I'm saying that _I_ don't believe you should have to to have adequate skills."

I disagree entirely. If you had the paladin gain more skill points at 4+ or 6+, people would create even DUMBER paladins.

The ONLY benefit right now for putting anything above a 10 into Intellegence is because the skill points are so low.

There should always be a drawback to putting a low score into a statistic.

If you raise the skill points per class, you have just made it so Int will be forever useless to everyone who isn't a Wizard.

I think that one of the reasons why people are chafing at this is because they want to be the combat fiend the fighter is, and when they are not, they complain that they don't get enough benefits in the class and that they have too many "ability score requirements" to be effective.

Ever try putting that lowly 12 into Wisdom or Charisma? What about a 10 Wisdom or Charisma paladin? Why not?

"There's no overriding REASON why WotC made the paladin (or any class, for that matter) only get 2 skill points/level."

Um...game balance is not an overriding reason?

Oh...okay then, we'll make wizards who can cure people, why not? I mean, there is no reason they can't...

And let's make everyone have all skills as class skills. (We houseruled this a couple months back.)

Oh wait, but then the Rogue sucks... (Have to make the Rogue better. Which we did.)

And the Ranger sucks... (Made that neater too)

And this sucks...

And that...

It's ALL about game balance. (And when you fix one thing, you have to tweak another. Which is why our house rules are 25 pages long.)

And another thing:

Nothing in DnD is based on reality.

Example: how long it takes paladins to learn their abilities.

Where in reality can you credibly show a paladin learning how to lay on hands and use that as a criterion for how long it should take a DnD character to learn this ability?

Maybe it takes as long as is 15 or more years to learn the fine art of doing this.

In DnD, you just get it whenever you take one level of Paladin. What "objective" criterion is that? How long does it take to achieve basic proficiency in "L1 paladin"? Is this measurable?

I guess I'm saying this: if you put your lowest score into Intellegence, your character is going to be stupid. Hence the low skill points.

If you attempt to "fix" it by giving paladins more skill points, you are doing a disservice to every other class out there, and to the entire idea that it is easier for smart people to learn things.

 

[reapersaurus]

1) The ONLY benefit right now for putting anything above a 10 into Intellegence is because the skill points are so low.

There should always be a drawback to putting a low score into a statistic.

2) If you raise the skill points per class, you have just made it so Int will be forever useless to everyone who isn't a Wizard.

3) Ever try putting that lowly 12 into Wisdom or Charisma? What about a 10 Wisdom or Charisma paladin? Why not?

4) It's ALL about game balance. (And when you fix one thing, you have to tweak another. Which is why our house rules are 25 pages long.)

1) wow, that would make INT mighty similar to CHA then, wouldn't it?
Because I NEVER see almost every class dumping their low stat in CHA.... <--tongue-in-cheek ribbing
Having a 'low' INT (8) is a handicap - it affects your skill point disbursement and it's your primary stat for ELEVEN skills!
(BTW: that's more than any other stat : INT affects 11 skills, WIS 8, CHA 9, STR 3, DEX 9, CON 1)
Simply adding 2 more skill points, for instance, to everyone across the board in NO way makes rogues suck.

As it is, I see no particular reason why WotC made INT as the stat that affects skills.
Look around - I don't see smart people with more ability inherently to see better, listen better, sense someone's true intention, etc, etc.

2) That's the way it's always been.
CHA is just as useless, if not more so for many characters.

3) Go ahead and make a paladin with 10 WIS and CHA, and you can happily be a 'role-player'

4) Adding more skills or even feats doesn't break this sacred cow called "balance" any more than granting boatloads of magic to the mages unbalances things in 3E.
Until D&D stops letting magic accomplish everything that any character can ever possibly do, I'll not sweat microscopic balance changes like what I (and many others) proposed.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Personally, I like the lack of skill points (and especially feats) in D&D. The more skill points, the more like one another characters seem. How many rogues have you seen without Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen, Bluff, or Tumble?

The paladin character in my group has 4 skill points per level (human, Int 12). The player has no problem with this. In the same way, the group's barbarian has 2 skill points per level (Int 6); he's never complained about being "limited" in skill points. At the other end of the spectrum is the human rogue with Int 18 (no kidding). He had more skill points on first level than the barbarian will have when he reaches 20th level, but had no problems assigning them. He basically read off the list of class skills...

The thing is, 3E is about hard choices. Characters really shine when he has abilities others don't, regardless of type. I know the rogue's player would be annoyed if the others moved in on his role.

As for the others, the barbarian's mighty happy with his Jump +25 skill that saved himself and another party member from near-certain TPK. The paladin had enough points to "dump" some into Profession (cook) and Wilderness Lore for that extra feeling of home.

 

[Crothian]

I think it's an inaccuracy that People think Monks and Paladins need high attributes. Most classes look better with higher attributes. I think people expect too much out of these classes, especially the Paladin.

"I need high strength because I'm a front line fighter."
"I need High Dexterity so I can smight fast and ride well."
"I need a high constitution for phuysical stamina and ability to withstand damage."
"I need a high Intelligence becasue I need skill points"
"I need a High Wisdom because I'm a spellcaster"
"I need a high Charisma because I can turn undead and use my forceful personality to withstand thing."

Every Paladin does not, should not be all of these. There are reasons to have high ability scores for every class. But no one expects it in every class.

Bottom line, Palainds are just as easy to play with low stats as high stats. It's no different then any other class.

 

[Archer]

If you need a skill you can just buy it for cash. There are those skill stones for that one shot skill, a number of skills are replaced by the ability to fly. What is the big deal about knowledge? Get a + spot item like eyes of the eagle and a sash of the horseman or whatever that gives some bonus to ride like the one in OA and you are set. Who needs heal skill when you can lay on hands? Paladin's skill selection is so poor it wouldn't matter if they could have 0 skill points per level.

Adding 2 skills points per level to every class would increase the penalty for having an int score of 3 without diminishing any other class. Rogues are set apart more by their exclusive skills and number of class skills than their number of skill points per level.

The skills based on int tend to not be very important for a particular individual to have. Having -4 appraise isn't much worse than having 0, especially if someone else has a 12 or so. Same thing applies to knowledge skills.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Long Post; Beware...


"1) wow, that would make INT mighty similar to CHA then, wouldn't it?
Because I NEVER see almost every class dumping their low stat in CHA.... "

And if the player does not suffer consequences from having a low Charisma, that is the fault of the DM for not taking a clue that NPC interaction can make or break a campaign just as easily as doing 112 points of damage.


"Having a 'low' INT (8) is a handicap - it affects your skill point disbursement and it's your primary stat for ELEVEN skills!
(BTW: that's more than any other stat : INT affects 11 skills, WIS 8, CHA 9, STR 3, DEX 9, CON 1) "

But that is ALL intellegence is good for: skill points. Are you seriously trying to tell me that having a 'low' Con is not as debilitating or even moreso?

It affects only one skill, but it also affects two other extremely important characteristics: Will Saves and Hit Points. I would think that that just *might* make up for Con only affecting Concentration. (Tongue in cheek.)

Should every 'low' ability score suffer a handicap?

Yes.

Hence the point of 'low' score...




"3) Go ahead and make a paladin with 10 WIS and CHA, and you can happily be a 'role-player'"

Accusing me of being a "role-player" is not an effective way of undermining my argument.

I could have easily said, "Have fun playing your Munchkin Cheeseball Twink Fighter Spiked Chain Combat Reflexes Psionic Warrior Standstill with a 42 Strength!", and it would not have hurt your position in the least.

There are three points made here that I contested:


(1) Paladins are broken because they have too many "ability score requirements."

An "effective" Paladin can exist with lower than ideal ability scores, as long as all of the characters have lower than ideal ability scores, and each low ability score for each character hurts the PC in some way.

Also, because a Paladin gets a myriad of abilities, 'high' ability scores really aren't necessary in all stats.

Example: Consider a Paladin with a 3 Charisma and a 14 Wisdom.

You say, "How can a Paladin possibly be 'effective' with only a 3 Charisma? EVERY Paladin NEEDS a high Charisma! That is the bread and butter of Paladins!"

I will compare him to a Fighter with a 3 Charisma.

Same Skill Points, Weapons, Armor, HD and Saves.

Different Class Skills, but not different enough to alter the scales.

Fighter: 11 feats + Specialization Option

Paladin: Spells + Mount + Remove Disease + Smite Evil + Aura of Courage + Detect Evil + Divine Health - Code of Conduct - Associates

I would say Remove Disease, Divine Health, Smite Evil, Aura of Courage, and Detect Evil are worth one feat each, on average.

Code of Conduct and Associates are really easy to maintain, however, for sake of argument, I'll give them one negative feat each.

5 Feats - 2 feats = 3 Feats

3 Feats + Spells + Mount = 11 Feats + Specialization

Spells + Mount = 8 Feats + Specialization

I would propose that Spells are worth 7 feats and a Mount is worth 1 feat and Specialization.

IMHO, they are balanced when they both have a 3 Charisma.

Therefore, they must be balanced at higher Charisma ability scores, because a Fighter gets less benefit than a Paladin from Charisma.



(2) It's broken that Paladins only get 2 skill points/level

"4) Adding more skills or even feats doesn't break this sacred cow called "balance" any more than granting boatloads of magic to the mages unbalances things in 3E."

If you increase the number of skill points a Paladin gets from 2 to 4, and you increase a Rogue's skill points from 8 to 10, you have just nerfed the Rogue.

Assuming a 10 Int:

You just increased the amount of skill points available to a Paladin by 100%. (2--->4)

While you only increased the number of skill points to the Rogue by 25%. (8--->10)

And you may say, "Well let's just double the number of skill points a Rogue gets from 8 to 16!"

This doesn't actually fix anything, however, because Rogues don't need that many new skills (We're talking 16 maxed class skills), since not all skills are created equally.

Ranks in Profession (Farmer) or Forgery really aren't as useful as Spot or Listen.

My point is this: if you increase the number of skill points to all classes, the classes with low amounts of skill points benefit more than the classes with more skill points.

This has to be balanced in some way to make the game fun for all classes to play.

With increased skill points, you also decrease the value of Intellegence as an Ability Score.

See below for a critique on that.

(3) It's broken that Intellegence affects skill point acquisition.

"As it is, I see no particular reason why WotC made INT as the stat that affects skills.
Look around - I don't see smart people with more ability inherently to see better, listen better, sense someone's true intention, etc, etc. "

If you mean "Smart as in IQ" then, yes I agree with you. Many "booksmart" people aren't adept at the above skills.

(Even though they might not have Spot, Listen or Sense Motive as class skills...but that is a different argument.)

However, that is not the definition of intellegence in the PHB.

"Intellegence determines how well your character learns and reasons." PHB pg 8

In the game: Intellegent = Fast Learner = More Skill Points.

"2) That's the way it's always been.
CHA is just as useless, if not more so for many characters."

I disagree. It used to be that Int WAS worthless for ANY character (other than a Wizard). Now they have changed it so Intellegence is SLIGHTLY useful for all characters. Same as Charisma.

If you increase the # of skill points available for each class, you decrease the effectiveness of Intellegence. Do you want to make Intellegence even more worthless?


"Until D&D stops letting magic accomplish everything that any character can ever possibly do, I'll not sweat microscopic balance changes like what I (and many others) proposed."

It sounds like you have a bigger gripe with magic than with skills. Fix magic then, not skills.

And please make it balanced.



P.S. Although, I don't necessarily agree with the "Magic accomplishes everything that any character can ever possibly do."

P.P.S. Oh yeah, and just because "many others" proposed it, doesn't mean it's good.

 

[Archer]

You just completely ignored my point that giving everyone more skill point does not "nerf" the rogue. The rogue has double the max ranks in most skills and still has exclusive skills. If the paladin had 12 skill points per level he would still not be the equal of the rogue in skills. (assuming the original 8 pts/level for rogues)

You also ignore the point I made that increasing the number of skill points per levels increases the value of intelligence rather than decreases it. Having a int of 5 means one less skill point per level when you have 2 per level. If you have 4 per level then it means getting 3 less skill points per level. The penalty has been tripled for low int, making it more important to have a higher int to avoid the penalty.

Right now there is no real penalty for having a rock bottom intelligence score rather that just a below average intelligence. Heck, half-orcs are even bonused by having a 3 int because their racial penalty is half negated because they can't have an int of 1 and their cha score was a dump stat anyway. A half orc with 20,18,18,3,10,1 is a very effective character.

Smite evil is charisma dependent.
None of those paladin abilities are worth a feat each, not even close, except for the mount.
Spells are worth 1 feat, not 7. They have 2 spells at level 11. A 1st level cleric has 5 spells plus they get 2 domain powers. Are you saying 1 level of cleric is worth 7 feats?