Why are paladins so dumb?

[ConcreteBuddha]

"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)"

Good point, although I still maintain that you are helping the Paladin more than you are helping Rogue. (I guess nerf was a strong term.)

What I meant is this:

A rogue's forte is skills and sneak attack. That is it.

Any increase in another class' skill points is going to have balance issues with the rogue.

The point is not that the paladin would ever be a skills fiend like the rogue, but that the paladin shouldn't ever have access to more skill points because it increases the power of said class, while the same increase in skills does not help the rogue as much.


"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..."

Another good point but I have to disagree with this one, too. The previous posts were talking about characters with a 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 Intellegence.

And what I mean by devaluing Intellegence goes like this:

Right now, a player just might put a stat higher than 10 into Intellegence to eek out more skill points.

With your system, most players would never think of doing this. In fact, they would always be satisfied with a 10 Intellegence or lower. That is a devalue to Intellegence.

"The penalty has been tripled for low int, making it more important to have a higher int to avoid the penalty."

Players of this game do not "avoid penalties", they gain benefits.

Every Point Buy Paladin would have an 8 Int if you increase the # skill points.

Why?

There are only three "must have" skills for a paladin: Ride, Spot and Listen.

You could make an argument for Diplomacy, but it definitely doesn't have to be maxed.

Any other skill is just window dressing.

"Right now there is no real penalty for having a rock bottom intelligence score rather that just a below average intelligence."

Besides the fact that the character is a complete idiot instead of being slightly stupid?

Besides the fact that any DM worth his salt is not going to let a 3 Intellegence character come up with anything useful as a plan, nor are they ever going to be able to figure anything out or learn anything or reason anything out.

Such a character is a liability, not a resource.

"their cha score was a dump stat anyway."

Why?

"A half orc with 20,18,18,3,10,1 is a very effective character."

Define "effective" and then maybe I'd agree with this.

This has to do with my "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."

Which I might add, you so gracefully ignored.


"Smite evil is charisma dependent."

Only the attack bonus. the damage bonus is level 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."

1) Show me a single feat that is as powerful as being immune to ALL fear and granting all your allies within 10ft. a +4 morale bonus to their saves.

2) Show me a single feat that gives you immunity to ALL diseases, including mummy rot and lycanthropy.

3) Show me a single feat that allows you to detect evil at WILL.

4) Show me a single feat that allows you to remove ANY disease 6 times a week.

5) Show me a single feat that gives you a damage bonus equal to your CLASS LEVEL to an evil creature 1/day.

I would say each of these abilities is worth more than a single feat each (except for smite evil), but I was being nice.

The above, of course, is if you are playing the game in a campaign.

Meaning: as an adventure game in which someone called a DM reads a core handbook called the MM and uses fear, disease, and evil creatures.

Of course, if you are just playing this character for arena combat, then yes, all of these abilities blow...


"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?"

No, what I am saying is this:

The ability to cast up to 4th level spells is better than 7 feats. As I Fighter, I would gladly trade in 7 feats to gain the Paladin spell-list.

Um...just to name a few spells:

Divine Favor, Magic Weapon, Protection from Evil, Resist Elements, Undetectable Alignment, Disple Magic, GMW, Remove Blindness/Deafness, Dispel Evil, Cure Spells, Freedom of Movement, Holy Sword, Neutralize Poison, Death Ward...

Each of these, if only a few for once a day, is worth 7 feats.

"except for the mount."

I contend a mount is actually worth more than 1 feat. A permanent companion that gets nifty abilities and you can equip it with stuff and it will do whatever you say.

Sounds like Leadership...and any good DM will tell you that is the most powerful feat out there.


P.S. Oh yeah, and you can get that one, too.

 

[Archer]

There aren't feats to duplicate most class abilities but there are feats superior to class abilities and spells the substitute for class abilities (spells are a class ability of their own.)

Someone with divine grace isn't going to fail a fear save,

Specialization is +2 damage on every attack against every monster, every minute of every day. Smite evil is insignificant in comparison.

Remove disease, this is a cleric spell. You don't need to be immune if you can be cured. Spending a feat isn't even required to have this ability.

Innate spell, you can now detect evil at will for the rest of your life without any code restrictions for the cost of 1 8th level slot. Most people would consider this a waste of a feat however.

I contend you can buy (with treasure) almost any skill so whether you get 2 or 20 skill points per level, it makes little practical difference.

How is a DM not going to let you come up with an idea? Make you tell another player so their character can have the idea?

Cha is a dump stat because someone else has the high charisma.

A character is effective when they do their thing better. If you already have the worst X in the party it hardly matters if your weak ability is even weaker.

If you value spells so highly you play a cleric instead of a fighter. The cleric certainly doesn't have any less fighting ability. Most of the spells you mention are worthless when the paladin casts them as his caster level is so low compared to a real caster. If you can't live without a paladin spell, get it added to your weapon, usable 1x/day. It only costs a little money, not something valuable like a feat. If you value the paladin spell list as 7 feats then you'd value a wizard/sorceror/cleric at 25 feats.

I play a paladin with only 2 levels of paladin, because paladin levels suck. Fighter, templar, divine champion and windrider are all far superior. I just have my sword cast holy sword and save the trouble of having to have 16 paladin levels to do the same thing. It costs 20k gcs but that is a small price to pay to save 14 character levels.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I think every class needs more skill points. One the balance argument is totally bogus IMO. They balanced clases for combat, and then acted like out of combat things like skills were unimportant. Most rogues I see near equal the fighters in combat, unless they are played like total retards, and if the fighter is played dumb then the rogue frequently exceeds the fighter in combat. Yet out of combat the fighter, and the paladin just suck beyond belief. If the rogue is going to be good enough in combat to contribute, right along with the fighter, then the paladin and fighter ought to be good enough in skills to contribute right along with the rogue. Fighter types are only balanced in games where you run from fight to fight. If the game includes out of combat scenarios then the fighter types start loosing balance. If the focus of the game or heck just 50% of the game is not oriented an fighting then the fighter classes suck.

About the only classes who maybe shouldn't get a skill boost are the pure spellcasting classes, including the bard. Magic covers so many out of combat things, they don't need an out of combat boost, and they certainly don't need an in combat boost either.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

"Someone with divine grace isn't going to fail a fear save,"

The character I mentioned didn't have divine grace, because of the 3 Charisma.

Great Wyrm Red Dragon Fear DC = 38.

I think that Fighter may like that feat.

"Specialization is +2 damage on every attack against every monster, every minute of every day. Smite evil is insignificant in comparison."

True, if that was a fair comparison. Specialization is one of the best feats out there, this one ranks with Ki Shout or the equivalent.

"Remove disease, this is a cleric spell. You don't need to be immune if you can be cured. Spending a feat isn't even required to have this ability."

I was comparing a fighter.

And I think it's pretty obvious that Remove Disease is for everyone else in the party.

"Innate spell, you can now detect evil at will for the rest of your life without any code restrictions for the cost of 1 8th level slot. Most people would consider this a waste of a feat however."

Fighter.

Besides, waste of a feat for a Fighter? Because Mobility is SO much more useful.

BTW, you are one person, not "Most People."

"I contend you can buy (with treasure) almost any skill so whether you get 2 or 20 skill points per level, it makes little practical difference."

Then why give them more skill points if it's SO easy to get treasure and buy skill point items?

"How is a DM not going to let you come up with an idea? Make you tell another player so their character can have the idea?"

Um, Stupid Character = Stupid Character. That is what a low intellegence means. That's why you roleplay a low intellegence.

"Cha is a dump stat because someone else has the high charisma."

And you walk into town ever? You never interact with any NPCs? You never talk?

"A character is effective when they do their thing better. If you already have the worst X in the party it hardly matters if your weak ability is even weaker."

Disagree with that version of effectiveness.

That only works in "perfect" DnD where a Fighter, Cleric, Mage and Rogue all decide to adventure together in "perfect happy DnD land" where the mage never uses anything but cast spells, the fighter never talks, the cleric never does acrobatics, or the rogue never tanks.

Effectiveness to me is being able to do one thing really well, but not at the expense of being horrible in everything else.

"If you value spells so highly you play a cleric instead of a fighter. The cleric certainly doesn't have any less fighting ability."

I compared a fighter. A Fighter is a fair comparison to a Paladin. A Cleric is not.

"Most of the spells you mention are worthless when the paladin casts them as his caster level is so low compared to a real caster."

Define worthless. Define "real" caster. (I'm assuming you mean Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid). Please explain why the power level of a FIGHTER is dependent on another class, while this is not true of a Paladin.

"If you can't live without a paladin spell, get it added to your weapon, usable 1x/day. It only costs a little money, not something valuable like a feat."

If your DM lets all magic items be instantly available and he never takes or sunders items, then obviously, I will buy whatever I want.

"If you value the paladin spell list as 7 feats then you'd value a wizard/sorceror/cleric at 25 feats."

I don't really understand your point here.

"I play a paladin with only 2 levels of paladin, because paladin levels suck."

Suck compared to what?

"Fighter, templar, divine champion and windrider are all far superior."

Three are PrC, and one I have already shown is NOT superior, it is balanced with a Paladin.

"I just have my sword cast holy sword and save the trouble of having to have 16 paladin levels to do the same thing."

Man, I just wasted 16 levels of Paladin, and I only got the second best hit die, 4th level spells, an awesome mount, and the best BAB.

I would have been so much more powerful if I had been a Fighter and had my sword cast Holy Sword! (Why and how does your sword have this ability and why can't a Paladin have an equivalently powerful weapon?) And joy! I also wasted these extra feats in Point Blank Shot and Great Cleave!

"It costs 20k gcs but that is a small price to pay to save 14 character levels."

Yep, because Holy Sword is the only saving grace of a 20th level Paladin.

"I think every class needs more skill points."

I'm not arguing against that, I'm arguing against giving more skill points without balancing it first.

"Most rogues I see near equal the fighters in combat."

Those are single-classed Rogues I presume?

And all of the enemies in your campaign use cover, concealment, are immune to critical hits, have armor of fortification, have regeneration, reach, or heaven forbid, attacks the ROGUE instead of the Fighter!

"Yet out of combat the fighter, and the paladin just suck beyond belief."

Yup, that's what happens when you get the second best hit points, best BAB and lots of nifty abilities to go with it.

What does the Rogue get?

Um...sneak attack and skills.

And man, it really sucks getting all of those feats as a fighter. Maybe I should try...um...Skill Focus? (The +3 kind) Alertness? All of the other <+2 this +2 that> feats.

"Fighter types are only balanced in games where you run from fight to fight."

Hence: "Fighter"

Yup, and Rogues are GREAT in those types of games.

I think you just hit on the idea that not every class is good at everything. And the Fighter is supposed to suck outside of combat.

Does it suck to have crappy skill points? Yes.

Does it suck to not get zillions of feats? Yes.

But if the Rogue is really more "powerful-efficient" than the Fighter, I truly expect everyone to be playing Single-Class Rogue Tanks next gaming session.

 

[Don21584]

"And the Fighter is supposed to suck outside of combat."

Says who? Your DM? That's a cliche, and it does NOT have to be that way, but if that's the way you play them, then yeah, they are going to suck out of combat.

And having such a low Int doesn't automatically mean you can't think of any worthwhile plan. They could come up with such a "stupidly" simple plan that it would work. "let's look if there's a back door!"

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

"And the Fighter is supposed to suck outside of combat."

"Says who? Your DM? That's a cliche, and it does NOT have to be that way, but if that's the way you play them, then yeah, they are going to suck out of combat."

Yeah, why should we play cliches?! I'm going to play a Wizard with a Two-Handed Sword and Full Plate who doesn't cast spells!

Damn it! What do you mean I'd suck?!

'And having such a low Int doesn't automatically mean you can't think of any worthwhile plan. They could come up with such a "stupidly" simple plan that it would work. "let's look if there's a back door!"'

Ahem.

An example of a 3 Int creature: Hydra

An example of a 4 Int creature: Small Earth Elemental

An example of a 5 Int creature: Otyugh

So the fighter in the above example is dumber than an Otyugh. He's dumber than a Small Earth Elemental. He is as dumb as a Hydra.

He can't use contractions. He wouldn't understand the concept of if/then statements. He wouldn't understand the past, present or future tenses. He can't even reason that a door is a way to escape, let alone a back door. He can't even reason that he wants to escape because he can't handle any thought farther in the future than 30 seconds or so.

On a very good roll, he may say "LOOK DOOR!!!"

And if he's got a 1 Charisma AND a 3 Int, he wouldn't even say this because he doesn't have enough force of personality to get his point of view across, no matter how limited.

Perspective: he has the Charisma of a Zombie.

If your DMs aren't enforcing this, then I repeat:

"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."

The same applies with Intellegence.

 

[Don21584]

"Damn it! What do you mean I'd suck?!"

Ooohh, your opinion is fact now? When did this happen?
Playing a non-cliche character does not mean you disregard what the character is known for, you just don't use that as the main basis of every last thing you do.

"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."

I'm sorry, not every single campaign I'm in involves NPC's that aren't enemies. And there's no need for the DM to go out of his way to point out PC flaws, either.
DM: So you rolled 1 bad stat, eh? *Gets out torturing whip* Time to make an entire campaign involved around Joe-Bob's character with the low Int.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

""Most rogues I see near equal the fighters in combat."

Those are single-classed Rogues I presume?

And all of the enemies in your campaign use cover, concealment, are immune to critical hits, have armor of fortification, have regeneration, reach, or heaven forbid, attacks the ROGUE instead of the Fighter!

"Yet out of combat the fighter, and the paladin just suck beyond belief."

Yup, that's what happens when you get the second best hit points, best BAB and lots of nifty abilities to go with it.

What does the Rogue get?

Um...sneak attack and skills.

And man, it really sucks getting all of those feats as a fighter. Maybe I should try...um...Skill Focus? (The +3 kind) Alertness? All of the other <+2 this +2 that> feats.

"Fighter types are only balanced in games where you run from fight to fight."

Hence: "Fighter"

Yup, and Rogues are GREAT in those types of games.

I think you just hit on the idea that not every class is good at everything. And the Fighter is supposed to suck outside of combat.

Does it suck to have crappy skill points? Yes.

Does it suck to not get zillions of feats? Yes.

But if the Rogue is really more "powerful-efficient" than the Fighter, I truly expect everyone to be playing Single-Class Rogue Tanks next gaming session.

Yep these are single class rogues. And yes the opponents will use cover, concealment, some are immune to crits, some have armor of fortificaiton, regen, reach, and may attack the rogue instead of the fihgter. None of that changes things because the rogue is the best suited for not only choosing the battle situaitons, but making it so the party chooses the battle situations. Cover, concealment are great except when the rogue attacks from surprise from a direction those don't help. And for those times they can't crit things so no sneak attacks, oh geez they have to suffer with cleric bab, what ever will they do, with their high dex and bow attacks.

The rogue gains, sneak attack, skills, uncanny dodge, evasion, and high level abilities. If rogues sucked in combat, then yeah sure then they should rule the universe from beyond the grave outside of combat. But they don't suck, they nearly equal fighters by sometimes dealing less damage, and yet sometimes delivering far more damage than the fighters do.

Fighter as a name shouldn't mean all they can do is fight. If all they could do is fight, then the rogues should never, be able to deal as much damage as a fighter in a round of fighting. And yet rogues and virtually every other class somehow manages to deal as much damage or more, and contribute in a variety of other ways to combat. Yet none of them are supposed to suck out side of combat.

And if your players had a lick of power gaming sense a lot more of them would be playing single classed rogues. With some clerics thrown in for spell power, and good combat skill support.

 

[The Souljourner]

Wow, this thread kind of exploded, didn't it? Well, let me throw my weight in here.

Detect evil at will is in NO WAY even CLOSE to a feat. It's a first level spell for clerics that is only very rarely useful. It's really only handy when someone who is evil is trying to fool you into thinking he's a good guy. How often that happens is up to your DM, but realistically it shouldn't happen more than once or twice in a whole campaign.

Immune to disease / remove disease. This is worth TWO feats? WTF? How much exposure to diseases do you have in D&D? Almost none. Mummy rot and Lycanthropy are the only ones you realistically *ever* encounter, and I'd be surprised if you encountered them more than once in a whole campaign. I don't know about you, but I would never take a feat that was only going to be useful once during the entire campaign.

Immunity to fear I could definitely see as a feat. However, it would be one of those rarely taken because you don't encounter fear very often either. Sure, against a dragon, it's a godsend, but against 99% of all other monsters, its useless.

And there you have the crux of the problem behind all these abilities. Sure, in some very limited circumstances they are great, but most of the time they don't do a damn thing except add flavor to your paladin.

A 3 charisma paladin would SUCK. Probably about as much as a 3 dex fighter. Why? Because all of the paladin's abilities that are useful almost all the time are based on his Charisma. Lay on hands, saving throw bonus, the to-hit benefit of smite evil, and turning. These are the things that the paladin is likely to use very often. Lay on hands and the saving throw bonus are probably going to be used in nerly every fight. Smite evil will probably be used any day that includes some fighting.

The only abilities that are consistantly useful that don't depend on Charisma are the mount and spells. The spells are nice, but the fact that your caster level is so low and you get higher level spells so late, it's almost not worth it except for the one or two really powerful paladin only spells. The mount is cool. Not always useful, since lots of adventuring is done in mount unfriendly conditions, but it is cool.

WITH the paladin's charisma based abilities, I think it's balanced with the fighter. Without them, he's completely inferior to an evenly levelled fighter/cleric of the same character level.

Skill points - I like giving 2 extra skill points to every class. It means fighters might actually have a skill or two that might be useful in one or two remote situations once in a while, if it's Tuesday and a full moon. And don't give me that crap about the rogue getting nerfed by this. Ever played a rogue? You're looking at this HUGE list of class skills and you want to max out like 12 of them, and then you realize you DON'T have 18 intelligence so that's not happening. Giving a rogue +2 skillpoints per level is a LOT better than giving the same thing to a fighter. Why? What the heck is the fighter going to put them into? Craft Wicker Baskets? The fighter is ALREADY constrained by his class skills. It would be nice to once in a while see a fighter that doesn't look like he's a blind deaf mute who's never learned a single thing in his whole life.

Ok, that's enough for now.

-The Souljourner

 

[Archer]

If you enjoy roleplaying a character that can't use contractions or can't think of anything useful that's fine but if I want to act in a more normal fashion that's my perogative as the player. One only suffers from having a low charisma if they happen to be adventuring alone. Even then a low charisma makes things a little harder, not impossible. You can still make a DC10 check with a 15+ with a charisma of 1. You succeed half as often as someone with a charisma of 10. Using a one shot skill item will get you +10 on your roll for 400 gcs, now you are as good as someone with a 20 charisma. If you know this is your weakness, make sure to pick one up in the rare event you will need one.

Immunity to dragon fear only means you don't take a -2 to hit. That penalty is pretty minor considering you are fighting a dragon and the tactics required.

Long posts of nothing but short sentences without any paragraphs or reasonable thought sequencing add little if anything to a discussion. Repeating the word fighter over and over is not any help either.

Almost all parties have the fighter, healer, rogue and arcanist. So the example of happy D&D land where balanced adventuring parties exist is the valid example while the all fighter or all caster parties are the exception. All classes have to be considered in a comparison. You can't over value something because one class doesn't have it when other classes have it in spades.