Spoony's PnP Tales

[DavidBVal]

Naw, because they were as shit as paladins. they are basically unplayably bad and underpowered and cant challenge anything for shit.

We are talking about chosen by god characters that are simply put, among the weakest classes in the game. Being a paladin used to mean something, in 3e all it meant is that you were a cleric that was severely gimped.

Care to elaborate, how is a 2nd edition paladin more powerful than a 3.5 edition? <-polite way to call bullshit

Paladins were never a powerful class stats-wise, compared to casters. They're sometimes strong, because of inmunities, and often an exceptional RP challenge/opportunity.

 

[LeStryfe79]

 

[Lhynn]

Care to elaborate, how is a 2nd edition paladin more powerful than a 3.5 edition? <-polite way to call bullshit

Paladins were never a powerful class stats-wise, compared to casters. They're sometimes strong, because of inmunities, and often an exceptional RP challenge/opportunity.

Well, apart from being as strong in a fight as a fighter (which actually meant a shit in 2nd edition), having bonus to already low saving throws, being completely immune to magic thanks to an item only they can use and having access to really powerful low level spells you mean? Immunity to fear, the ability to cure diseases, to heal wounds daily, to read the heart of people at will?
In second edition all these abilities were extremely good, on third edition they are lame and unnecessary or easily replaceable.

 

[DavidBVal]

Well, apart from being as strong in a fight as a fighter (which actually meant a shit in 2nd edition),

in 3.5e... who plays a pure fighter for longer than a few levels? paladins are equal in stats, a fighter can snatch a few extra feats sure, but I doubt those can be more useful than all of the other paladin powers.

you're not remembering maybe, that the requisite of CHA 17 likely meant that all other of the Paladin stats were much lower, nor the fact that the paladin was likely to be lower level than the fighter, making him, almost certainly, have a worse THAC0 and damage. At least with equal rolls.

having bonus to already low saving throws,

+2 bonus in 2ed, vs adding CHA bonus in 3.5... CHA, which can be increased by buffs or items easily, and will probably be at least a +2 to begin with, for Smite Evil.

being completely immune to magic thanks to an item only they can use

I don't like the concept, but whatever, just include it in your 3.5 game. Not to mention, it's silly taken for granted every paladin will get one.

and having access to really powerful low level spells you mean?

Probably slightly better in 2ed, where they get access to several schools directly. but with a -8 caster level. And no spells until level 9, makes it almost as marginally useful in both editions.

Immunity to fear, the ability to cure diseases, to heal wounds daily, to read the heart of people at will?
In second edition all these abilities were extremely good, on third edition they are lame and unnecessary or easily replaceable.

Most of those skills are also in 3.5e in a similar form. LOH is better, more versatile. Smite Evil is rather cool, tends to make Paladin players always excited about using it.

 

[Lhynn]

in 3.5e... who plays a pure fighter for longer than a few levels? paladins are equal in stats, a fighter can snatch a few extra feats sure, but I doubt those can be more useful than all of the other paladin powers.

u wot m8? paladins are even worse than fightars in 3.5

you're not remembering maybe, that the requisite of CHA 17 likely meant that all other of the Paladin stats were much lower

it only meant that if you had bad stats you were better off as a fighter, nothing else. Theres a reason you roll dices to create a character instead of drawing from a pool.

nor the fact that the paladin was likely to be lower level than the fighter, making him, almost certainly, have a worse THAC0 and damage. At least with equal rolls.

Level didnt influence damage, as for THACO, yeah sure, one level behind is a small price to pay to get all the other goodies like turn undead, healing wounds, immunities, etc.

+2 bonus in 2ed, vs adding CHA bonus in 3.5... CHA, which can be increased by buffs or items easily, and will probably be at least a +2 to begin with, for Smite Evil.

You cannot into math, STs in 2nd edition were static, if you had a 3 in a saving throw it meant that you had a 15% chance failure, that +2 pushed it into the only failure is the critical failure territory, magical items could take you even further to deny the very few spells that actually put a penalty on the saving throw. in 3rd edition a +4 only means that you just countered the mages int bonus, up to a point, if you solely focused on increasing charisma it meant that you quickly became a shit fighter, if you focused on anything else it meant that the mage would raise their DC faster than you would your ST, its a rapidly losing battle unless powerful magical items are in place.

I don't like the concept, but whatever, just include it in your 3.5 game. Not to mention, it's silly taken for granted every paladin will get one.

Any paladin worth a shit should at mid levels, otherwise they are not doing gods work. As for only including it in my game? yeah sure bro, lets bring up extremely specific houseruling when discussing mechanics.

Probably slightly better in 2ed, where they get access to several schools directly. but with a -8 caster level. And no spells until level 9, makes it almost as marginally useful in both editions.

Who even gives a shit about caster level in 2nd edition, you could still save against dispel magic. As for it starting out late, yeah sure, that didnt make it any less useful tho, magic meant a shit beyond caster levels in 2nd edition.

Most of those skills are also in 3.5e in a similar form. LOH is better, more versatile. Smite Evil is rather cool, tends to make Paladin players always excited about using it.

LoH is complete and utter shit because there are so many sources of healing in 3e. smite evil is utter shit because its a single use and the damage isnt impressive at all.

Bro, yer a nice guy, but your lack of knowledge of 3e mechanics is really impressive. Paladins are simply one of the worst classes in the system in the 3rd edition, the single worst class in core, below even the monk (the monk for crying out loud). Its so bad its easier to compare it to npc classes like the warrior or the commoner than comparing it to a rogue or a barbarian for example.

 

[DavidBVal]

u wot m8? paladins are even worse than fightars in 3.5

Noooo way. Really man, you need to do a reality check. Fighters? Just good for putting 2 or 4 levels in it. I never saw anyone play a pure fighter, honestly. A pure paladin is NOT a strong character either, compared to a caster, but it's much more versatile than a fighter, and would completely kick his ass in a 1v1 fight, every single time. What does a fighter get, compared to a Paladin? Weapon specialization, a whoppering +2 to damage. And you better decide by level 4 what will be your weapon of choice... forever. That's basically the whole class "identity feature", because the other feats can be get by everyone else (which is apparently one of your problems with the paladin powers, yet apprently you don't see it as a problem for fighters, which you have decided are stronger)

it only meant that if you had bad stats you were better off as a fighter, nothing else. Theres a reason you roll dices to create a character instead of drawing from a pool.
Level didnt influence damage, as for THACO, yeah sure, one level behind is a small price to pay to get all the other goodies like turn undead, healing wounds, immunities, etc.

Goodies that, apparently, don't exist in 3.5. Without the need to be one level behind.

Plus check your math, man. There will be more fighters with 18 strenght than paladins, as the chance of getting two 17+ high stats is much lower.

You cannot into math, STs in 2nd edition were static, if you had a 3 in a saving throw it meant that you had a 15% chance failure, that +2 pushed it into the only failure is the critical failure territory, magical items could take you even further to deny the very few spells that actually put a penalty on the saving throw. in 3rd edition a +4 only means that you just countered the mages int bonus, up to a point, if you solely focused on increasing charisma it meant that you quickly became a shit fighter, if you focused on anything else it meant that the mage would raise their DC faster than you would your ST, its a rapidly losing battle unless powerful magical items are in place.

I agree that a +2 (-10%) in 2ed and 3.5ed are not the same, but I've DMed with 3.5ed Paladins in my party, which reached level 14. With a few items, and a base Charisma of 18, they can easily have a +8 bonus, and become nearly inmune to any Fortitude saves, which are the most dangerous of all, and very good at the other saves. You believe Fighters have it better at saving throws maybe? As you say they're a stronger class...

LoH is complete and utter shit because there are so many sources of healing in 3e. smite evil is utter shit because its a single use and the damage isnt impressive at all.

Wait, are you talking about an actual game, or you were playing NWN in easy mode, with potions in every crate? Really, I don't know what you're talking about. Healing sources will be abundant if divine casters are there, or if the DM decides that there will be potions everywhere. LOH is an impressive skill, and has been in all the games I've been in, although obviously more in the early to mid levels.

And Smite Evil probably depends a lot on the playstile. We always focused in story and it was rare to have more than 3-4 battles in the same day. That allowed the paladin to shine against bosses/casters, hitting with a +14 damage and with a +8 to hit (allowing him to actually use Power Attack for a biggest hit, which sometimes was in the 30s with a 2 hander). Now that's the kind of cool factor which players like.

Bro, yer a nice guy, but your lack of knowledge of 3e mechanics is really impressive.

You too, mate, I'm very impressed by yours.

I'm not sayin "Pallies r awsm!!!" and they really begin to suck as they reach the mid-levels compared to casters. But they were much worse off in 2nd ed, and fighters really are not a good example of a class that outshines them...

 

[Lhynn]

Noooo way. Really man, you need to do a reality check. Fighters? Just good for putting 2 or 4 levels in it. I never saw anyone play a pure fighter, honestly. A pure paladin is NOT a strong character either, compared to a caster, but it's much more versatile than a fighter, and would completely kick his ass in a 1v1 fight, every single time. What does a fighter get, compared to a Paladin? Weapon specialization, a whoppering +2 to damage. And you better decide by level 4 what will be your weapon of choice... forever. That's basically the whole class "identity feature", because the other feats can be get by everyone else (which is apparently one of your problems with the paladin powers, yet apprently you don't see it as a problem for fighters, which you have decided are stronger)

Feats are good, more feats are better, feat synergy is better than anything paladin offers, fighters get plenty of those.

Goodies that, apparently, don't exist in 3.5. Without the need to be one level behind.

They are not as good, maybe some turn undead metamagic, but i remember them being crap for paladins.

Plus check your math, man. There will be more fighters with 18 strenght than paladins, as the chance of getting two 17+ high stats is much lower.

Hm, no, you didnt get it right, if you have bad stats you are better off as a fighter, if you have them high you should go for paladin, this is in AD&D. Tho weapon specialization is something you dont want to miss out on, you win a lot more.

I agree that a +2 (-10%) in 2ed and 3.5ed are not the same, but I've DMed with 3.5ed Paladins in my party, which reached level 14. With a few items, and a base Charisma of 18, they can easily have a +8 bonus, and become nearly inmune to any Fortitude saves, which are the most dangerous of all, and very good at the other saves. You believe Fighters have it better at saving throws maybe? As you say they're a stronger class...

Both are crap in 3rd edition, poor will saving throws mean you can be thrown out of the fight easily. Fighters just fight a lot better because of feats.

Wait, are you talking about an actual game, or you were playing NWN in easy mode, with potions in every crate? Really, I don't know what you're talking about. Healing sources will be abundant if divine casters are there, or if the DM decides that there will be potions everywhere. LOH is an impressive skill, and has been in all the games I've been in, although obviously more in the early to mid levels.

Actual game bro, nwn is fairly balanced.
If you go low magic i dont even know why you are playing a non caster, they are bottom of the barrel crap. fighters are still better tho.

And Smite Evil probably depends a lot on the playstile. We always focused in story and it was rare to have more than 3-4 battles in the same day. That allowed the paladin to shine against bosses/casters, hitting with a +14 damage and with a +8 to hit (allowing him to actually use Power Attack for a biggest hit, which sometimes was in the 30s with a 2 hander). Now that's the kind of cool factor which players like.

Playstyle? bro its a single attack with a shitty damage bonus.

You too, mate, I'm very impressed by yours.

I'm not sayin "Pallies r awsm!!!" and they really begin to suck as they reach the mid-levels compared to casters. But they were much worse off in 2nd ed, and fighters really are not a good example of a class that outshines them...

No, they start bad and ed up worse compared to almost everything in the game (which is no small feat). Its literally like talking to a retard for fucks sake. get it tru your head, paladins in 3e are below crap.

 

[DavidBVal]

Its literally like talking to a retard for fucks sake

Agreed!

for example:

Actual game bro, nwn is fairly balanced.
If you go low magic i dont even know why you are playing a non caster, they are bottom of the barrel crap. fighters are still better tho.

It's very clear your games were very different from mine (or the ones I played). For some reason you see normal that there's lot of potions around, then you complain about how healing and inmunities to disease or fear have become meaningless without seeing a connection... potions are meant to be a finite, expensive resource, or half the mechanics is pointless, in ANY edition. The fact you decided that things go high magic from one edition to the next, is your decision alone. Fear inmunity (and bonus to allies!) is no longer important? why? what about disease? that's all DM decision, not a matter of editions.

Saving +30% is the same as saving +0%. Sure man, of course. Only being invulnerable counts. That makes sense. They should make saves a binary stat.

Playstyle? bro its a single attack with a shitty damage bonus.

If a Paladin fights 50 challenging enemies per day, probably you are right.

If not, ite becomes very relevant. A level 14 Paladin (with 22 CHA thanks to items/spells) has 3 Smite evil per day. He'll likely always have one or more ready for an enemy boss/caster. As a DM I remember thinking, I have to beef up the AC even of casters, or they'll get slaughtered in one round by this paladin bastard.

Example: Smite Evil gives +6 to hit, but he spends it all into PA. Total damage with a +3 2-handed sword (I think he had STR 20) : 2d6 + 3 + 5 + 12 + 14 = 34+2d6. And when there is a crit, into the 80s, you get one of these memorable PnP moments, where players cheer and howl.

Of course, he can use all three in the same round, if he's confident about the enemy's AC. Maybe he can use less PA in subsequent attacks, to secure the hit. That can allow him to deal easily 100ish damage in a round, and entirely change the course of a boss fight.

Meanwhile, the fighter keeps doing +2 damage on each hit... maybe more efficient in the long run, but boring, nothing to remember.

Regarding LoH, well, I always remember LoH becomes a lifesaver, especially when two people get seriously hurt in the same round, and there is only one cleric. Also, just another perk to compare to 2ed: If the enemy is undead, the Paladin can make a touch attack and use his LoH, to deal... 84 damage with no save.

I know, a wizard is better. I know, a cleric is better. But the 2ed paladin could do nothing of this. Could he? A paladin can cast starting at level 4 in 3.5, as opposed to level 9 in 2ed. Level 1 spells are awesome at level 9, right?

Seriously, I don't know what's into you regarding this. It's like you simply refuse to see what is obvious, man. 3.5ed is flawed, sure. But 2ed paladins were not as good as you remember them, and became better and more useful.

I hope you have better arguments than "I know more than you" this time.

 

[Lhynn]

It's very clear your games were very different from mine (or the ones I played). For some reason you see normal that there's lot of potions around, then you complain about how healing and inmunities to disease or fear have become meaningless without seeing a connection... potions are meant to be a finite, expensive resource, or half the mechanics is pointless, in ANY edition. The fact you decided that things go high magic from one edition to the next, is your decision alone. Fear inmunity (and bonus to allies!) is no longer important? why? what about disease? that's all DM decision, not a matter of editions.

Na, we didnt play with potions laying around, i actually played low magic, fact is you shouldnt need to heal if you are doing your job well. LoH doesnt add to survivability because it comes at the cost of another action and another class feature.
The decision to go high magic is the only sensible one if you want to keep some semblance of party play in your campaign tho, otherwise casters will demolish anything and everything you come across except other casters, the rest of the group can watch if they want.

Saving +30% is the same as saving +0%. Sure man, of course. Only being invulnerable counts. That makes sense. They should make saves a binary stat.

+6 isnt much when you are still only saving on a 20 bro, tho it does give you a fighting chance if you got a cool +5 cape. not that it matters really, most dangerous effects dont allow for a saving throw.
I remember

If a Paladin fights 50 challenging enemies per day, probably you are right.

Even if he fights one, its still shitty damage.

If not, ite becomes very relevant. A level 14 Paladin (with 22 CHA thanks to items/spells) has 3 Smite evil per day. He'll likely always have one or more ready for an enemy boss/caster. As a DM I remember thinking, I have to beef up the AC even of casters, or they'll get slaughtered in one round by this paladin bastard.

Why are your casters even getting hit at level 14+? cant they fly and go invisible and fuck them over in a million of ways? why are you playing them so poorly?
At level 14 any kind of sensible fighter build will destroy the best paladin in hand to hand combat.

Example: Smite Evil gives +6 to hit, but he spends it all into PA. Total damage with a +3 2-handed sword (I think he had STR 20) : 2d6 + 3 + 5 + 12 + 14 = 34+2d6. And when there is a crit, into the 80s, you get one of these memorable PnP moments, where players cheer and howl.

Or you can have a fighter power attack and do around the same or more damage via shock tropper. chain trippers, uber chargers, dungeon crashers, etc. can do more with less and all the time.

Of course, he can use all three in the same round, if he's confident about the enemy's AC. Maybe he can use less PA in subsequent attacks, to secure the hit. That can allow him to deal easily 100ish damage in a round, and entirely change the course of a boss fight.

How are they still missing their first and second attacks at lvl 14? thats like a +2X attack without optimizing against targets that at most can have 25 AC if that.

Meanwhile, the fighter keeps doing +2 damage on each hit... maybe more efficient in the long run, but boring, nothing to remember.

What kind of retarded fighter would waste a feat on especialization when there are so many feat intensive paths that are far more rewarding? Even focus is a waste of a feat, and it actually gives you a +2 to damage per attack if you are using the bonus with power attack, which means that at that level in 2 rounds attacking you already made up for most of the damage loss for not having smite evil, and it works on all creatures regardless of aligment! Its still garbage tho.

Regarding LoH, well, I always remember LoH becomes a lifesaver, especially when two people get seriously hurt in the same round, and there is only one cleric. Also, just another perk to compare to 2ed: If the enemy is undead, the Paladin can make a touch attack and use his LoH, to deal... 84 damage with no save.

Still asks for a touch attack, and devoting your entire round to do 84 damage strikes me as extremely retarded, why not just kill him?

I know, a wizard is better. I know, a cleric is better. But the 2ed paladin could do nothing of this. Could he? A paladin can cast starting at level 4 in 3.5, as opposed to level 9 in 2ed. Level 1 spells are awesome at level 9, right?

In 2nd ed lvl 1 spells are awesome at any level, in 3e with casters level and casting attribute dominating what you can do with them, its pure shit. The basic mechanics shit all over the paladin in this regard. And we are talking about fighting, almost all other noncaster classes can do more and better stuff outside of combat and still outshine them in combat, even rogues and bards.

Seriously, I don't know what's into you regarding this. It's like you simply refuse to see what is obvious, man. 3.5ed is flawed, sure. But 2ed paladins were not as good as you remember them, and became better and more useful.

They became worse and shittier in every conceivable way.

I hope you have better arguments than "I know more than you" this time.

I know more than you.

 

[DavidBVal]

Even if he fights one, its still shitty damage.

You're not even trying.

All saves are just succesful on a 20? really?

Why are your casters even getting hit at level 14+? cant they fly and go invisible and fuck them over in a million of ways? why are you playing them so poorly?

Things happen as part of a story, not all battles are a showdown in the middle of a plain, allowing for all kind of preparations. In fact that would suck, and be pointless. Most battles are unique, and happen in different ways, not to mention not all casters have ways to get out of the way, as wizards do, and players have their own ways to dispel/get close. there's a reason monsters, even those that can cast, have an AC and hp. But you already know all this.

You have a point about spells, 2ed are better and less level-dependent, but there's still some nice ones for 3ed, as Restoration, Break Enchantment. Shield Other comes to mind as a good RP opportunity, and a great way to protect a wizard. Nothing groundbreaking I know, but they're not useless, especially in small parties where sometimes not all the classical roles are covered.

I feel like this is arguing for the sake of arguing, man. Keep enjoying 2ed pallies and let's agree to disagree.

 

[Lhynn]

All saves are just succesful on a 20? really?

It was an exageration. It will usually let you have around 50% chance to save with your weak save against their spells as a paladin.

Things happen as part of a story, not all battles are a showdown in the middle of a plain, allowing for all kind of preparations. In fact that would suck, and be pointless. Most battles are unique, and happen in different ways, not to mention not all casters have ways to get out of the way, as wizards do, and players have their own ways to dispel/get close. there's a reason monsters, even those that can cast, have an AC and hp. But you already know all this.

Sure, its a narrative experience. But wizards have divinations, they have contingencies, they usually have minions. You may catch one once before he prepares, but that defeats the entire purpose of fighting a wizard, anyone can kill someone with 60 hit points and no defense.

You have a point about spells, 2ed are better and less level-dependent, but there's still some nice ones for 3ed, as Restoration, Break Enchantment. Shield Other comes to mind as a good RP opportunity,

Restoration is fine, but you also get it at level 16. break enchancement is shit because of the paladins caster level. Shield other is a fine spell, but sadly the paladin doesnt have the ability to recover hp that makes it actually good, a cleric did use it on my fighter once, allowed me to keep going

and a great way to protect a wizard.

A wizard shouldnt be getting hit. Seriously, if its getting hit, hes dead already, move on.

Nothing groundbreaking I know, but they're not useless, especially in small parties where sometimes not all the classical roles are covered.

It is useless, because of the cost of opportunity, truth be told you could be doing much better easily.

I feel like this is arguing for the sake of arguing, man. Keep enjoying 2ed pallies and let's agree to disagree.

Nothing wrong with arguing for the sake of arguing, this is the codex.

 

[Night Goat]

Paladins aren't as bad as monks in 3e - at least Paladins have decent AC and attack bonus - but I do think they're worse than fighters. A fighter only needs 2 high stats - strength and constitution - while a paladin also needs wisdom and charisma. Their combat ability will be worse, and the stuff they get in return is too weak to make up for it.

Paladins shouldn't exist in D&D anyway. They occupy the same conceptual space as clerics but narrower, and they're worse mechanically, and they have that moral code that will make the rest of the party hate them, and that detect evil ability that ruins plots...fuck 'em.

 

[Lhynn]

Monks have immunity to poison and diseases, plus evasion fast movement, sneak, can function without gear and have more skillpoints while being slightly less MAD, they can work well as scouts or keep stunned priority targets. In combat paladins are slightly better, sure, but outside of it monks trump them in almost every way.

They are both shit tho.

pallies are fun to play when they are strong, as only the strong can enforce justice. but this simply does not happen in 3e.

 

[hello friend]

Monks are a good dip class, and stuff like vow of poverty seems almost made for them. Fun can be had comboing stuff with variants like carmendine monk or zen archer dip if you're going ranged. With the right build you can use Int for AC, attack bonus, and damage + all the skill points.

If your going the unarmed monk route kensai can also be fun. Vorpal hands lol

 

[Lhynn]

Monks are very MAD. they NEED very powerful magical items to work well, more so than warriors actually, which is why vow of poverty is a very bad idea unless its a low magic setting. Intuitive strike is p. awesome tho.

 

[Night Goat]

Monks are a terrible dip class because the only classes that matter are spellcasters, and the first rule of optimization is thou shalt not give up spellcasting levels. Spellcasting is the most powerful ability in the game by far, and no one else has anything that's worth trading it for. Especially monks.

Vow of poverty comes from the worst book of the 3e era, and should never have been a part of the game. If you're going to take it, though, take it as a druid.

 

[DavidBVal]

It was an exageration. It will usually let you have around 50% chance to save with your weak save against their spells as a paladin.

Following your previous reasoning, I'd say that Paladins are almost guaranteed (except for critical fails) to resist Fort, which are IMHO the most dangerous of all saves, and have a decent chance to resist will saves, which are the second worst. Whereas a Fighter can sometimes resist Fort, and will rarely resist anything else.

I think a lot of our difference of opinion comes from play style here. Base saves were important in my games, and in particular Fear ones, as we usually played horror-themed stories in a low-level, low-magic world. Level 14 is the highest we've played, and it was the only time players reached double figures, because we had a high mortality rate (my players called my game "roguelike"). The reason why I prefer playing in low-mid levels is because the more everything scales up, the more unbalanced, random and overall fucked up a system becomes, and in particular 3.5. Resources that are meant to be finite and valuable, like HP or spell slots, stop being a concern at some point around level 10-12. As options multiply, the rule system begins to absorb more and more time which could be better spent RPing.

In this context, the built-in abilities from classes like Paladin or Bard become much more valuable. In particular, saves and inmunities from the Paladin, for instance, are great. LoH is very useful. Now, when the guy to your left can stop time or make meteors fall, and the guy to your right can resurrect the dead and kill enemies without saves, and the game begins resembling Dragonball Z with everyone flying and enveloped in a fiery aura of a dozen buffs, of course those little things become useless.

Paladins aren't as bad as monks in 3e - at least Paladins have decent AC and attack bonus - but I do think they're worse than fighters. A fighter only needs 2 high stats - strength and constitution - while a paladin also needs wisdom and charisma. Their combat ability will be worse, and the stuff they get in return is too weak to make up for it.

While you are right, in the end the difference is not noticeable. Wis 14 is enough... or even lower can be ok. And a decent fighter should probably get Int 13, shouldn't he? So it's just one more stat, CHA. I believe the saves and inmunities alone *can* make up for a little less hp.

Paladins shouldn't exist in D&D anyway. They occupy the same conceptual space as clerics but narrower, and they're worse mechanically, and they have that moral code that will make the rest of the party hate them, and that detect evil ability that ruins plots...fuck 'em.

It is true that with the multiclassing system, one can think that makes little sense to have any classes that are an actual hybrid between cleric and fighter, or wizard and fighter/rogue (bard), or druid and fighter (Ranger), when you can achieve a similar "identity" and be more powerful by just going pure caster plus a few noncaster levels. But I think those classes, for the most part, have enough of an "identity" and unique RPing to exist as they are.

In the particular case of Paladins, I believe they should gain more inmunities to magic as they reach the mid-levels. I hate the very concept of MR, but as it exists, and it is even given to monks, I can't understand why they didn't give it to Paladins.

It's not that hard to shape a story in which everyone is useful, and optimization is not everything... in fact it isn't even that important, at least for some players/groups. Those hybrid classes are much weaker than casters in terms of absolute power, but if you just want to have fun playing a martial artist, or a knight champion of goodness, a good DM will make thigns work.

 

[Lhynn]

Following your previous reasoning, I'd say that Paladins are almost guaranteed (except for critical fails) to resist Fort, which are IMHO the most dangerous of all saves, and have a decent chance to resist will saves, which are the second worst. Whereas a Fighter can sometimes resist Fort, and will rarely resist anything else.

First, no, they are guaranteed nothing, second i meant a 50% for their strong saves unless you count magical items, that are there for a reason. Constitution isnt the most dangerous one btw, its will, will saves are usually save or suck.

I think a lot of our difference of opinion comes from play style here. Base saves were important in my games, and in particular Fear ones, as we usually played horror-themed stories in a low-level, low-magic world. Level 14 is the highest we've played, and it was the only time players reached double figures, because we had a high mortality rate (my players called my game "roguelike").

I think a lot of our difference in opinions comes from your players sucking.

The reason why I prefer playing in low-mid levels is because the more everything scales up, the more unbalanced, random and overall fucked up a system becomes, and in particular 3.5. Resources that are meant to be finite and valuable, like HP or spell slots, stop being a concern at some point around level 10-12. As options multiply, the rule system begins to absorb more and more time which could be better spent RPing.

Sure i guess, as i said, if you are doing high level low magic you are doing it very wrong, extreme magical items are there in the world to cheapen spellcasters, and you want that if you are to have them play along with bad classes.

In this context, the built-in abilities from classes like Paladin or Bard become much more valuable. In particular, saves and inmunities from the Paladin, for instance, are great. LoH is very useful.

They are small stones in a pond, their help is extremely limited and it usually does more harm than good considering you could be doing something actually useful instead had you picked a different class.

Now, when the guy to your left can stop time or make meteors fall, and the guy to your right can resurrect the dead and kill enemies without saves, and the game begins resembling Dragonball Z with everyone flying and enveloped in a fiery aura of a dozen buffs, of course those little things become useless.

That can happen as soon as level 5 bro. And even before that wizards have spells that are either save with your weak save or suck, or straight on suck. The system is broken.
Use tome of battle and never look back if you are set on having noncasters have ANY fun. This only applies if you got competent players tho, if your mages use fireball and your clerics heal, then by all means, keep DMing the way you have been.

 

[DavidBVal]

Constitution isnt the most dangerous one btw, its will, will saves are usually save or suck.

In low levels (1-5), fort is much more important. Poison, disease, death, while will saves will not be as dangerous as later on. but if we're talking about the 20 levels stretch, yeah, you are probably right.

I think a lot of our difference in opinions comes from your players sucking.
...
This only applies if you got competent players tho, if your mages use fireball and your clerics heal, then by all means, keep DMing the way you have been.

I see. So in your games, people always take most numerically efficient course of action. What an interesting, realistic and varied world. Good that you guys don't suck!

A fireball is adequate for a pyromaniac sorcerer that loves to melt people and hear them scream. Healing is the most natural course of action when a comrade is bleeding besides you. RPing games are not wargames. You're playing a character here.

IRL conflict, be it war or a street brawl, or even a business meeting, people don't do what is best for them. Battles are a fucking mess where friendly fire kills as many of your people as the enemy. People make shitty choices all the time. My players focused on a concept, created characters using the ruleset, and after that, of course they tried to win and to do what is best rules-wise, but having fun and RPing your character was always the main goal for us. As in any group there were some munchkins and some casuals, there were players that would focus on raising their skill to play the lute simply because they wanted to be a virtuoso famous bard, not because it was requisite for any power. Similarly, NPCs sometimes made idiotic things, sometimes were cold and efficient. Almost always their priority would be not dying. Not to mention any setting with a small semblance of realism, must be imperfect. Not every wizard had access to the most efficient spells, because not every school/guild would have them available. Just like it would in a real world, in a good setting everything is half-broken or under construction, and people do stupid shit often. Intelligence, and choices entirely devoid of emotions, are rare.

 

[DavidBVal]

Back to Paladin "balance" between 2nd and 3.5 ed, or vs. Fighter, which was the origin of all this crap. I didn't mention Turn Undead, I think. for the record:

I never liked turn Undead very much. simply because it is a power which has just one usage, pretty obvious, and the availability/opportunity ratio usually means that you just spam it whenever there's undead around, not much choice or creative options there, so not very fun. However, as usefulness goes, Paladins are rather good at it in 3.5, better than clerics, since CHA is added to # of daily uses, and to both rolls (total HD turned, and turning damage). They get a -3 level penalty, but in this case, the CHA bonus will negate it easily, giving them a decent chance to actually turn an undead of higher HD than the paladin's level.

Also, if you take the Divine Might feat, you can use one of your Turn attempts to add your CHA to your melee damage, for a given round. Not exceptional, but not too shabby either, considering they get many daily uses of Turn Undead which are usually wasted.

 

[hello friend]

Monks are a terrible dip class because the only classes that matter are spellcasters, and the first rule of optimization is thou shalt not give up spellcasting levels. Spellcasting is the most powerful ability in the game by far, and no one else has anything that's worth trading it for. Especially monks.

Vow of poverty comes from the worst book of the 3e era, and should never have been a part of the game. If you're going to take it, though, take it as a druid.

Good as in good for making off-the-wall concepts work, which for me is half the point. Spellcasting is broken. Even first-level spells are a massive asset if used right. But if everyone's playing some kind of gish abomination - well. Can be fun, but you're playing a different game.

 

[Lhynn]

I see. So in your games, people always take most numerically efficient course of action. What an interesting, realistic and varied world. Good that you guys don't suck!

hello friend The problem comes when half the party plays their character the most effective way they can think of, and the other half plays a paladin and a monk.

A fireball is adequate for a pyromaniac sorcerer that loves to melt people and hear them scream. Healing is the most natural course of action when a comrade is bleeding besides you. RPing games are not wargames. You're playing a character here.

im not even gonna bother. mondblut

 

[hello friend]

Yes, that would be a problem. I wish good players were common enough around here for that to ever be an issue. As things stand, making a fully optimised character would only ruin the campaign for everyone else. I try to aim for a power level only somewhat above other party members, possibly with a hidden cheese ace.

 

[Lhynn]

The fact that you feel you need to is whats bullshit tho.
I enjoyed AD&D because i didnt have to hold back, character in any given class didnt vary wildly in power from one to the next, and every class had their own specialty that gave them a chance to shine, and it wasnt something as boring as "tank" and "dps". Even mages power in AD&D pales when compared to the one they wield in 3rd edition, in sheer possibilities, staying and stopping power. A high level all warrior classes had such saving throws that most spells wouldnt affect them, magical items with magic resistance or spell deflection werent that uncommon in mid to high level treasure tables either. Paladins could literally make a mage run, they were the nemesis of campaign villains like necromancers.

 

[DavidBVal]

The fact that you feel you need to is whats bullshit tho.
I enjoyed AD&D because i didnt have to hold back, character in any given class didnt vary wildly in power from one to the next, and every class had their own specialty that gave them a chance to shine, and it wasnt something as boring as "tank" and "dps". Even mages power in AD&D pales when compared to the one they wield in 3rd edition, in sheer possibilities, staying and stopping power. A high level all warrior classes had such saving throws that most spells wouldnt affect them, magical items with magic resistance or spell deflection werent that uncommon in mid to high level treasure tables either. Paladins could literally make a mage run, they were the nemesis of campaign villains like necromancers.