# 4th Edition made a great Paladin...



## Celtavian (Jul 6, 2008)

For all my complaints concering the magic system, I have to say I am very happy with what they did with the 4th edition paladin. Man, the paladin in 4th edition was hooked up. I don't know who designed the class, but someone that really likes Paladin must have some leeway at Wizards because the 4th edition Paladin is one tough class.

From what I have read so far, they are the most durable class in the game as far as taking damage. This doesn't seem to take much away from their ability to dish the damage either.

For a paladin lover like myself, this is awsome. I feel like I can play a true holy warrior paladin and be the bad to the bone holy warrior I always wanted to be. No more playing second fiddle to the fighters, barbs, and rangers. Now the Paladin is a serious threat on the battlefield that can endure combat like a champ.

I have to say that I really like the 4th edition version of the paladin. Whoever designed the 4th edition paladin, I say good friggin job. You must like Paladins. And you must not be alone on the design team. Because given the way combat works in 4th edition, they Paladin looks like the most durable class (save for perhaps the cleric though they get less healing surges and less hit points and armor) I've yet seen.

Man, I can't wait to play this version of the paladin.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jul 6, 2008)

So you haven't actually PLAYED a paladin yet?


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 6, 2008)

*re*



Wolfspider said:


> So you haven't actually PLAYED a paladin yet?




I'm basing my opinion on the following:

1. The various powers of the paladin and paragon paths. Feels like a holy warrior.

2.The way the combat system works. The numerous healing surges, lay on hands as a minor action, good starting hit points , and  bolstering strike look like a durable combination second to none. 

The paladin on paper looks real nice.

Does it play as nice as it looks on paper? Do you have any experience?


----------



## thundershot (Jul 6, 2008)

I've got to say, I HAVE played a Paladin, and I liked him a lot...

My only gripe is that it recommends giving a high STR or CHA first, then the other, then WIS. Well... after looking at it, I'd choose one of those two as the first and stick with the powers that go with it, and take WIS second, since it can boost the others, and the one you didn't choose as the 3rd...


If... um.. that made any sense. 



Chris


----------



## thundershot (Jul 6, 2008)

EDIT: How the heck did that double post??


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 6, 2008)

Glad the Paladin is workin' for ya. Regardless of edition (or even system) the Paladin is one of my favourite classes (or archetypes.)

Mind you, I actually prefer them to be something along the lines of a Paragon Path (?), or uh, Prestige Class. Whatever. A thing you work towards, or find yourself in, after at least a bit of striving and, I guess, 'trial by fire'.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 6, 2008)

I have played a paladin (cha-wis based) and it really rocks.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 6, 2008)

In the Friday game, the guy playing the dragonborn paladin was none pleased by his character. However, 1) the paladin wasn't build that well and 2) he was rolling really badly. 

The funniest (well one of) event of the night was him rolling 3[W] damage with his maul (6d6) of: 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5 and a 1 on the d20 to hit. Priceless. Pure priceless.

But, I can see a paladin being really good. He's going to remake as a (I believe) Human paladin going Charisma/Wisdom and ignoring Strength. It should prove to be awesome, I think.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 6, 2008)

I have to say the paladin is one of my favorites also. Played a warlord last night, and was not impressed with it, for some reason, I think I will switch back to the paladin for a bit more punch.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 6, 2008)

Re-implement the neccesary alignments and we'll talk, 4e paladins ;p

That said, the class I've been nerding over has been the new warlock.  I might just steal some 4e warlock ideas and use them for my own wicked purposes.  There's good stuff there.


----------



## Cirex (Jul 6, 2008)

One of my players really wanted to play a paladin (dwarven or dragonborn) but he wasn't sure about where to place stats. He wanted to try strength/wisdom as main, but we checked a few powers, and charisma was still important...

I couldn't help him much, so he went for a Dwarven warrior. The paladin will have to wait for a while.


----------



## Mercule (Jul 6, 2008)

Dice4Hire said:


> I have to say the paladin is one of my favorites also. Played a warlord last night, and was not impressed with it, for some reason, I think I will switch back to the paladin for a bit more punch.



I'm actually really interested in the warlord. Without having played one, I can't say for sure, but I think a lot of the issues people are having with it stem from the fact that the warlord isn't really as geared toward doing stuff as it is toward helping others do stuff. I think the people who stand to enjoy the warlord most are either the tactically-minded or those rare folk who actually enjoy the medic and buff cleric. If you like being the guy on the front line and in the spotlight, play a defender. Or maybe a striker.

Which brings us back to paladin and how shiny they are.


----------



## Trickstergod (Jul 6, 2008)

Mercule said:


> I'm actually really interested in the warlord. Without having played one, I can't say for sure, but I think a lot of the issues people are having with it stem from the fact that the warlord isn't really as geared toward doing stuff as it is toward helping others do stuff. I think the people who stand to enjoy the warlord most are either the tactically-minded or those rare folk who actually enjoy the medic and buff cleric. If you like being the guy on the front line and in the spotlight, play a defender. Or maybe a striker.




As I'm playing a Warlord right now in my 4th edition game, I have to say it's very satisfying. One of the highlights of last game was the whole party feeling pretty sure our Ranger was about to die - up until I charged one of the minions that just came bursting out, then followed by getting the Ranger up with Inspiring Word and finishing by giving him a move action thanks to Knight Move, thus getting his fat out of the proverbial frier it was in. 

The healing is nice and all, but the class offers so much more. I've been very, very impressed by the class so far. 

As for the paladin...it's a bit too supernatural for my tastes. The Divine Challenge feature was what turned me off on playing the paladin and over to playing the warlord. I preferred the class when it's only blatantly magical ability to start off was Laying on Hands (as it's one thing to do extra damage when you hit something, another thing entirely to do damage when you don't take a swing at all).


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 6, 2008)

I've had a player play a paladin in my campaign.

It's actually playable now with a "decent code" (meaning no code)! Their abilities are ... interesting, but I think, a tiny bit weaker than the fighter.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 6, 2008)

*re*

Strange. I would have thought their durability was much higher than the fighter. The fighter looks like a better damage dealer, but the Paladin looks like a better damage taker and more helpful for keeping the party alive. 

Well, I'm doing a Cha/Wis dwarf paladin. On paper he looks like a beast that will be hard to kill. But I'll see if I actually like how the paladin plays Monday. Hopefully it's as fun as it seems like it will be.

I primarily want a guy that can dish decent damage, but for the most defends well as we are trying to play with a warlord as primary healer. None of us are sure how that will go.


----------



## slwoyach (Jul 6, 2008)

I hate the new paladin.  I dislike the image of them now being a traveling light show.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 6, 2008)

slwoyach said:


> I hate the new paladin.  I dislike the image of them now being a traveling light show.




Traveling light show? Seems there are quite a a few attacks that aren't radiant. That being said, radiant is a very effective form of damage.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 6, 2008)

I have a Paladin I made to bring in as a 2nd character as we only have 3 players in our group.  I won't get to bring him into the game until after our next session, but he's already looking very impressive.  Our group should be level 9 by the time I bring him in and there are just a ton of great powers.  For a Defender he sure has a lot of healing abilities   It's kind of funny, b/c in 3rd Ed I hated the Paladin and didn't know why they didn't just make it a prestige class b/c it was just poorly done.  4th Ed definitely feels like the most playable Paladin ever in D&D.

ProfCirno>You know that LG is still in the game right?  Paladins are more champions of their gods now and not all just LG.  The Plethora of Paladins article from the 1E days had all the diametrically opposed Paladins listed in Dragon, so this isn't the first time to have non-LG Paladins (besides the CE Anti-Paladin).


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 6, 2008)

I am DM NPCing a DBorn Pal (to make up party numbers) and she is pretty good. Int 5 so no helpful hints from this bimbo! I also went with a Str build which is definitely sub optimal, I didn't want my Pal doing all the talking...apart from Intimidate I reckon 2 thirds of the powers are Cha based or have Cha in it and a few levels of powers have all Cha based or no Str based powers. So I intend to multi into fighter (Pal of Kord so makes sense) and swap out the Cha powers only levels.
However a useful combatant and the minor healy bits have saved the bacon several times!


----------



## Foxen (Jul 6, 2008)

I too enjoy the new Paladin.  My favorite aspect, that she need not be Lawful Good (she's good, just not too lawful!).  She also doesn't have to be this "shining" example of goodness all shiny golden and all.  In fact, she's totally ragtag wearing an old torn dusty faded dress and all.

I went Wisdom high (STR 14, WIS 16, CHA 14 - rolled character versus point buy, Wisdom got the loving +2 from being human and 14s were my high rolls).  The main reason why I chose Wisdom high versus Strength was...well, I thought I was getting into a "hostile" party.

My pally is durable because she gets 3x Lay on Hands a day.  Between Bolstering Strike, Second Wind, and a back-up healing pot, she manages to stay up in most combats while soaking a lot of hits.  And although she's a bit hampered in combat (much lower "to-hit"), the extra lay on hand HELPS especially since the party is a bit hostile towards her... (she's the crazy maid or so they all think).

Heh.

Fox


----------



## Cor Azer (Jul 6, 2008)

Trickstergod said:


> As for the paladin...it's a bit too supernatural for my tastes. The Divine Challenge feature was what turned me off on playing the paladin and over to playing the warlord. I preferred the class when it's only blatantly magical ability to start off was Laying on Hands (as it's one thing to do extra damage when you hit something, another thing entirely to do damage when you don't take a swing at all).




To each his own and all that, but... you have an issue with a divine agent having access to divine powers? That seems... odd to me.

But I agree with your warlord sentiments... much fun to be had in my opinion.


----------



## Corjay (Jul 6, 2008)

The Paladin needed the thunder back, and I'm glad 4e did it. In 1e, EVERYONE wanted the Paladin. My group was fond of singing the song from the old western "Paladin. He's the mighty Paladin!" Of course, back then, we kids didn't understand what the paladin really represented.

There were some severe problems with the Paladin that endured. 3e fixed the male-centric racism, but 4e completed the fix in removing the lawful good-only restriction (which was a biggy for me) and returning the distinctiveness, might, and glory of the Paladin. No longer does a Paladin represent the lawful good honky fighting for a Christian-style faith in the vain of the falsely represented Knights of the Templar as if some sort of Jedi knight. First, the Knights of the Templar, and later the Rosecutionists were anything but good. Secondly, couldn't a Paladin serve with the same zeal no matter who his god is? No matter whether his god is good or evil? I think 4e got it right. It was the serving their god, divine might, and healing ability that defined the Paladin; not their being white, not being male, not being human, not being sickeningly good, but being a holy warrior with a mission and a free ticket to ride and the might to back it up. If you're against his god or in opposition to his mission, then you're on his s---list.

An evil Dragonborn Paladin? That's awesome.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 7, 2008)

Corjay said:


> The Paladin needed the thunder back, and I'm glad 4e did it. In 1e, EVERYONE wanted the Paladin. My group was fond of singing the song from the old western "Paladin. He's the mighty Paladin!" Of course, back then, we kids didn't understand what the paladin really represented.
> 
> There were some severe problems with the Paladin that endured. 3e fixed the male-centric racism, but 4e completed the fix in removing the lawful good-only restriction (which was a biggy for me) and returning the distinctiveness, might, and glory of the Paladin. No longer does a Paladin represent the lawful good honky fighting for a Christian-style faith in the vain of the falsely represented Knights of the Templar as if some sort of Jedi knight. First, the Knights of the Templar, and later the Rosecutionists were anything but good. Secondly, couldn't a Paladin serve with the same zeal no matter who his god is? No matter whether his god is good or evil? I think 4e got it right. It was the serving their god, divine might, and healing ability that defined the Paladin; not their being white, not being male, not being human, not being sickeningly good, but being a holy warrior with a mission and a free ticket to ride and the might to back it up. If you're against his god or in opposition to his mission, then you're on his s---list.
> 
> An evil Dragonborn Paladin? That's awesome.




I like that you prefer this paladin. But man, you read way too much into the base concept of the previous edition paladins. 

The Paladin was not based on the Knights Templar. It was based on the idealized knights of Arthurian legend such as Launcelot who healed somone with just his hands in one of the many stories based on the legends. And Sir Galahad the purest knight who ever lived. 

I don't know that I liked paladins of different aligntments having the same abilibites. That lacks flavor. Why would the paladin of an evil god be so good at healing? Or a Paladin of Kord?

I like the new Paladin class as a whole. But I don't like the unaligned part. It doesn't seem right to me that Paladins of different gods would have nearly the exact same abilities.

But I understand it. It's a game. They didn't want to make six different paladins to cover each alignment. I just go with it. Maybe someday someone comes out with a book of Paladins and Clerics designed according to which god they worship. One of my favorite books of all time was the 2nd edtion _Faiths and Avatars_ that turned the cleric from some generic priest into a very indvidual and cool priests. The number of people playing priests increased dramatically after that book came out because almost no one I know has ever thought it appropriate for priests of different gods to be too alike. It ruined the verisimilitude of playing the priest. It was really like they all worshipped the same god with diffrent names.

This version of DnD does exactly the same thing. Wizards generally releases so few books catering to people that want a defined and interesting religious system in DnD. Personally, I'd would have liked a different paladin and priest design for each deity. It's very difficult for me to imagine an evil or neutral paladin or priest having the same powers as a good paladin or priest.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 7, 2008)

One of the players described the paladin as "The new 3e cleric".

Basically the 4e cleric is nothing like the 3e one. The new cleric is a buffer/healing. The paladin is similar to the 3e cleric in the way he has big armor, can heal, but also brings big pain.

The paladin is one of my favorite classes so far. And btw, I've played the warlord, and I love him as well. When a warlord is going for his daily, everyone is cheering you on, because if you hit with that daily the party just became awesome!!


----------



## FireLance (Jul 7, 2008)

I'm playing an elf paladin, and I was very pleased at the way he performed in the game yesterday. Of course, the fact that I rolled four or five natural twenties during that session (once for my daily ) and rolled maximum damage a few oher times on basic attacks helped. I'm trying to balance Str, Wis and Cha and although the conventional wisdom is that you should have at least a 16 (if not an 18) in your prime attribute, I went with 14, 15 and 15 (going to 14, 16 and 16 at 4th level). The elven accuracy racial ability helps make up for the more balanced stats by allowing me two chances to hit when I really need it.

By the way, if you're interested in converting the 3e paladin to 4e, have a look here.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 7, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I don't know that I liked paladins of different aligntments having the same abilibites. That lacks flavor. Why would the paladin of an evil god be so good at healing? Or a Paladin of Kord?




Because the evil Cleric's party needs healed too?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 7, 2008)

SSquirrel said:


> Because the evil Cleric's party needs healed too?




That's for the Cleric to do it then ;p

Something tells me that the evil god of war and conquest or the god of lies wouldn't be bestowing their champions to heal people.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 7, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> That's for the Cleric to do it then ;p
> 
> Something tells me that the evil god of war and conquest or the god of lies wouldn't be bestowing their champions to heal people.



Maybe not physical healing. But inspirational healing - sure he would. So, just reflavor your Cure Light spell, and rename Healing Word to Inspiring Word...

Lay on Hands might become "Inspiring Whip" or something like that...


----------



## Corjay (Jul 7, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I like that you prefer this paladin. But man, you read way too much into the base concept of the previous edition paladins.
> 
> The Paladin was not based on the Knights Templar. It was based on the idealized knights of Arthurian legend such as Launcelot who healed somone with just his hands in one of the many stories based on the legends. And Sir Galahad the purest knight who ever lived.
> 
> ...



Back in 1e, my play group came up with an Anti-Paladin or Dark Paladin, which was essentially Lawful Evil. However, he was pure evil in the sense that the Paladin was pure good. With the new rules, a Paladin of this type could easily be created. But the Paladin still needs to heal himself and bring his divine might to the party. His goal should still be to honor his god and see himself as a holy warrior (that is, carrying out his god's will for the good of all).

Evil is not a frame of mind. Unless they're insane, people don't just wake up and think about what they can do to be evil (contrary to much modern entertainment). They do evil things 1) under the misguided belief that they are doing right, or 2) they don't know how to be any other way.

Even if I were wrong about the Knights Templar being the source of the Paladin, they make for a good point here for the point of the evil Paladin. Many of them performed wicked atrocities under the precept that they were serving the Christian God and doing so with full pardon. Their point of view was that they were doing God's will. But under our more sensitive consciences, it is clear that they were evil through and through. This is your evil Paladin, but the class should still apply. Their god will want them to survive and to keep their fellows alive.

To others in the thread, the 3e Cleric was fashioned after the 1e Paladin, not the 4e Paladin on 3e Cleric. The 1e Cleric only had a mace, a breast plate and mage-like powers with a bit of healing tossed in.


----------



## Carpe DM (Jul 7, 2008)

I've played a 4E paladin, and the OP is entirely correct.  4E paladins are wonderful.  They are easy to learn, complex to play.  

And, playing a non-good paladin (finally) is fantastic.  My Odhinn-worshiping paladin with Raven Queen's Blessing is simply a ball.

Mind you, I hate 4E generally, after playing it.  Simple, yet inelegant.  Importing the 4E paladin into 3.5 would be best.

cheers,

Carpe


----------



## Mallus (Jul 7, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Something tells me that the evil god of war
> and conquest or the god of lies wouldn't be bestowing their champions to heal people.



A god that wants their forces to succeed in more than one battle would.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 7, 2008)

*re*



SSquirrel said:


> Because the evil Cleric's party needs healed too?




I like flavor first over balance. The cleric's party needs healing too is not much of a reason why he should have the same powers as the Cleric of a good god.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 7, 2008)

*re*



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Maybe not physical healing. But inspirational healing - sure he would. So, just reflavor your Cure Light spell, and rename Healing Word to Inspiring Word...
> 
> Lay on Hands might become "Inspiring Whip" or something like that...




That's more creative. I would like that better.

Something along the lines of whipping your teammates to get them to do the job would fit a healing surge. I could see that.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 7, 2008)

*re*



Corjay said:


> Back in 1e, my play group came up with an Anti-Paladin or Dark Paladin, which was essentially Lawful Evil. However, he was pure evil in the sense that the Paladin was pure good. With the new rules, a Paladin of this type could easily be created. But the Paladin still needs to heal himself and bring his divine might to the party. His goal should still be to honor his god and see himself as a holy warrior (that is, carrying out his god's will for the good of all).
> 
> Evil is not a frame of mind. Unless they're insane, people don't just wake up and think about what they can do to be evil (contrary to much modern entertainment). They do evil things 1) under the misguided belief that they are doing right, or 2) they don't know how to be any other way.
> 
> ...




But given that DnD is a fantasy game, I prefer more idealized version of certain things. Evil has its place, but I just don't see evil gods giving the same things as good gods to their servants.

I wouldn't classify all the Knights Templar as evil. They were a human organization with a goal. There were good and evil men within their ranks. I've no idea why you think the Knights Templar is an evil organization. Because they killed people for their cause? C'mon now, that is the human race since the dawn of time with few exceptions.


----------



## Corjay (Jul 8, 2008)

Well, they were promised riches and admittance to heaven no matter what sins they committed prior to, during, or after the invasion of the holy land. The promise of riches and the freedom to rape whomever their perverse desires incite them to, to torture for the shear fun of it, and to murder at will are not exactly noble incentives.

My point wasn't that they were ALL evil. My point was that the majority were and it was allowed. Being puritanical was far from the requirement.


----------



## Andor (Jul 8, 2008)

Corjay said:


> Well, they were promised riches and admittance to heaven no matter what sins they committed prior to, during, or after the invasion of the holy land. The promise of riches and the freedom to rape whomever their perverse desires incite them to, to torture for the shear fun of it, and to murder at will are not exactly noble incentives.
> 
> My point wasn't that they were ALL evil. My point was that the majority were and it was allowed. Being puritanical was far from the requirement.




I think you're confusing the Templars with Crusaders. And even the Crusades varied wildly from one to the next with the 4th crusade in particular probably taking the "Do as I say, not as I do." prize when they decided that actually going to the holy land to fight muslims was too far to walk and just sacked the christian city of Constantinople instead. 

The Templars were a monastic order that spent most of their time guarding pilgrims on thier way to and from the holy land. They eventually evolved into the first bankers in europe.


----------



## Corjay (Jul 8, 2008)

Yes. Sorry, I was forgetting myself. The Templars arose from the Crusaders (though the Templars still became the equivellent to the mafia, offering "protection" and insurance, sometimes being the very ones doing the robbing on the road) when the Crusaders no longer had a Crusade. So yes, I was speaking of the earliest form, the Crusaders.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 8, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Lay on Hands might become "Inspiring Whip" or something like that...




Where there's a whip there's a way


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 8, 2008)

double


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 8, 2008)

*re*



Corjay said:


> Well, they were promised riches and admittance to heaven no matter what sins they committed prior to, during, or after the invasion of the holy land. The promise of riches and the freedom to rape whomever their perverse desires incite them to, to torture for the shear fun of it, and to murder at will are not exactly noble incentives.
> 
> My point wasn't that they were ALL evil. My point was that the majority were and it was allowed. Being puritanical was far from the requirement.




Sorry man, this is a false view of the templars. Not even the majority were evil and you need to do some reading before you make such a statement.

The Templars were organized. They had banks and fortresses and land holdings. They followed a code. They may have had their share of evil man, but they certainly were not an evil organization allowed to "rape or kill" who they wanted to. They certainly did not do such things.

There was a Templar justice system. If one of their knights did as you seem to think they did, they would bring it the leaders for justice.

Sorry man, the Knights Templars and various crusaders had respect for the Muslims they fought against and vice versa. If you read the history of the organization, you will understand that you do not get the kind of holdings they had by being a random murdering organization with no sense of justice or code. What you are talking about are barbarians. I don't know if you noticed but the barbarians lost against the organized Knight organizations exactly for the reasons you stated: they didn't care about how they treated the people they fought.

The Knight Templars, Hospitalers, Teutonic Knights, and various other Knightly organizations employed the rule of law and had a specific idea of how to treat people.

I'm not saying there weren't men who profiteered. But I am saying it wasn't the majority. They did very much care how their knights conducted themselves. 

Alot of the knights that joined the Templars and various other organizations were men who gave up wealth and prestige in regular society fighton a crusade. They gave the majority of their wealth to Templar organizations.

I can't recite the history all hear. But you picked kind of a poor topic to discuss. I'm a student of Christian knightly organizations, though I'm not a Christian. Speaking as a person not aligned with or interested in aligning with any relgion, purely as a person who studies the subject as a personal interest, the knightly orders were far from the barbarian evil organiztions you claim they were. Far, far, far from the truth.

Do your research. The Knights Templar were organized, ethical, moral, and not all evil as an organization. Nor were the majority the butchers you claim them to be. They were just as men were back then, save that they were successful for quite a while until their own people turned on them because of the power struggle between the knights and the royal power.

It's a great history if you ever want to give it a read. The Spanish organizations, The Teutonic Knights, Knights Templar, Hospitalers, and various other knightly organizations. I wouldn't oversimplify any human organization as you have done.

But as I said, DnD is idealized. So the grayness of human morality doesn't much enter into it.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 8, 2008)

*re*



Corjay said:


> Yes. Sorry, I was forgetting myself. The Templars arose from the Crusaders (though the Templars still became the equivellent to the mafia, offering "protection" and insurance, sometimes being the very ones doing the robbing on the road) when the Crusaders no longer had a Crusade. So yes, I was speaking of the earliest form, the Crusaders.




The Crusades is a huge piece of history you are oversimplifying. The French Crusaders who held the Holy Land for quite some time mixed freely with the Muslims, even married Muslim women. And some even converted.

It's one thing to war against a group of people, but another thing once you win. Alot of history in that region of the world. Interesting history. Don't believe too much of the negative hype you read because it suits a viewpoint you hold. There are quite a few amazing stories of co-existence between the Muslims and the Christians that didn't involve mass murdering one another.

It's a great read if you ever want research The Crusades and Outremer. It will give you a much better idea of what it was like to be driven to reclaim a land that three religions and the peoples of each consider holy.


----------



## Andor (Jul 8, 2008)

Back on topic btw, looking at the Paladin vs the Cleric, I'm not sure what the Paladin really has in his favor.

The Pally gets better defenses, but the Cleric has better healing so that's kind of a wash. And the Cleric can always spend a couple of feats to get better armour. The Cleric also has less MAD since he could basically dump CHR and not care but the Pally kind of needs wisdom. 

Powers wise the Cleric pretty much kicks the Paladins butt, although the Palladin does get the _one_ ranged-sight power in the PHB. (Did we really need an entire category for one power?) Furthermore the Cleric PrCs PPs kick the Palladin PPs all hollow. Who wouldn't want Angelic Avenger or Radiant Servant over Astral Weapon or Justiciar?


----------



## Schmoe (Jul 8, 2008)

thundershot said:


> I've got to say, I HAVE played a Paladin, and I liked him a lot...
> 
> My only gripe is that it recommends giving a high STR or CHA first, then the other, then WIS. Well... after looking at it, I'd choose one of those two as the first and stick with the powers that go with it, and take WIS second, since it can boost the others, and the one you didn't choose as the 3rd...




I can't see how a Paladin would be very effective if he prioritized STR->WIS->CHA.   Almost all of the big-ticket Paladin abilities are CHA-based.  STR provides some variety, and WIS helps to augment some STR and CHA abilities, but without the Charisma, a paladin will feel very limited.


----------



## Corjay (Jul 8, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> The Crusades is a huge piece of history you are oversimplifying. The French Crusaders who held the Holy Land for quite some time mixed freely with the Muslims, even married Muslim women. And some even converted.
> 
> It's one thing to war against a group of people, but another thing once you win. Alot of history in that region of the world. Interesting history. Don't believe too much of the negative hype you read because it suits a viewpoint you hold. There are quite a few amazing stories of co-existence between the Muslims and the Christians that didn't involve mass murdering one another.
> 
> It's a great read if you ever want research The Crusades and Outremer. It will give you a much better idea of what it was like to be driven to reclaim a land that three religions and the peoples of each consider holy.



I take it you found something that supports my view, but at the same time, you're certainly right. While I painted the majority as cruel, perhaps it was actually a minority, but my point still holds that you don't have to be "good" to be in the place of a holy warrior, as the holy warrior has absolution.


----------



## Mercule (Jul 8, 2008)

Andor said:


> Back on topic btw, looking at the Paladin vs the Cleric, I'm not sure what the Paladin really has in his favor.



Smiting.  Paladins get to smite.

In 3e, my wife -- who normally won't touch casters -- played a dwarven cleric on a whim.  She quite enjoyed it, but mainly because she found the smiting and personal buff clerical spells and kept the narrow focus.  Not much healing from her.

In 4e, I think I'll recommend she play a paladin so she can get her smite on.  It just sounds cooler than the fighter.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 9, 2008)

*re*



Corjay said:


> I take it you found something that supports my view, but at the same time, you're certainly right. While I painted the majority as cruel, perhaps it was actually a minority, but my point still holds that you don't have to be "good" to be in the place of a holy warrior, as the holy warrior has absolution.




There are quite a few stories about corruption within the Templars or Crusaders, and vice versa. That is the way humanity is.

You don't have to be "good" in the real world. But DnD fantasy isn't the real world.

In a DnD world the gods are indisputably real and actively give power. If you breach their code of conduct, you will be punished.

That is gigantic problem with using real world history as an analogue for a DnD world. In the real world arguments as to the truth of the existence of gods and religious philosophies is open-ended.

In a DnD world, there is no argument. You can't walk up to the dwarf paladin and say "Prove Moradin exists" and he'll debate you. He'll just channel some divine power and show you. In a DnD world the ambiguity of religion does not exist. There are very real divine powers that give real power that if there were scientists about could do nothing but come away and say "Moradin exists".

So with that in mind, I like idealized versions of gods that have defined philosophies and grant power that fits with their philosophy and area of influence. That's just a peresonal preference on my part. I have no idea what percentage of players prefer well-developed religions and deities. I know most of the guys I play with could care less. There much more focused on what their individual characters can do. I've almost always been the one more focused on the fluff and roleplaying.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 9, 2008)

*re*

I played the Paladin in some mock combats. He is a beast. His durability is insane. I feel that my assessment of the Paladin as the most durable character class in 4th edition is accurate. They are hard to kill and can dish a decent amount of damage. 

Now this assessment applies to a paladin focused on charisma, wisdom, and constitution. I do not think a strength based paladin would be as durable as a charisma based paladin.

But I like my paladin. The guy is a beast of a tank that will give us alot of frontline power. I'm looking forward to bringing the pain as my groups defender. I personally think the Paladin will be the number one defender in the game unless they come out with something better down the line.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 9, 2008)

Funny, the Paladin looks like he almost has better healing or at least more powers with healing side effects.  I have a L3 cleric for one game and a L9 Paladin I'm about to start playing in my wife's game.  Protecting Paladin looks like he'll kick ass, take names and pitch some great heals.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 9, 2008)

*re*



SSquirrel said:


> Funny, the Paladin looks like he almost has better healing or at least more powers with healing side effects.  I have a L3 cleric for one game and a L9 Paladin I'm about to start playing in my wife's game.  Protecting Paladin looks like he'll kick ass, take names and pitch some great heals.




Lay on Hands is nasty, especially if you enhance it with feats. Since you get a ton of healing surges, you can keep yourself and others up a long, long time.

I was cycling Bolstering Strike with Enfeebling Strike. I would hit with Bolstering Strike, boost my hit points, and if the enemy missed his next attack, I would use Enfeebling Strike to lower his attack chance. It worked pretty well. 

I did notice quite a few healing abilities in the Paladin power tree. Not sure how they compare to the cleric who seems like the supreme healer, but I'm hoping enough that I'll be able help keep the group alive. We're playing without a cleric right now. The game designers have claimed we could run without a cleric in our party and I want to see how true that is. So we are only have a warlord and paladin for healing. I hope we can stay alive because my friend says Shadowfell Keep is a rough adventure. I've read some things on here that concern me. We'll see how it goes. I just know my Paladin is tough, and I hope the overall synergy is such that we can survive the tough encounters without cleric healing.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 10, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I did notice quite a few healing abilities in the Paladin power tree. Not sure how they compare to the cleric who seems like the supreme healer, but I'm hoping enough that I'll be able help keep the group alive. We're playing without a cleric right now. The game designers have claimed we could run without a cleric in our party and I want to see how true that is. So we are only have a warlord and paladin for healing. I hope we can stay alive because my friend says Shadowfell Keep is a rough adventure. I've read some things on here that concern me. We'll see how it goes. I just know my Paladin is tough, and I hope the overall synergy is such that we can survive the tough encounters without cleric healing.




Warlord+Paladin should be plenty of healing.  Once we bring our extra 2 characters in to make a party of 5, we'll have both a Cleric and a Paladin.  The Paladin is a strong enough hybrid healer that I wonder if he couldn't handle sole healing duties.


----------



## jasperwinkel (Aug 9, 2008)

*Build options*

Build options: About str vs wis vs cha.
This is a choice that bothered me greatly while building my dragonborn paladin. The thing is that if you want to play your role as defender well, you want to mark more than one opponent each turn. My original concept was indeed to build Cha/Wis, but then I looked more closely at the powers. There's several encounter abilities that allow your paladin to mark additional targets. However, the first three of them are strength based (Piercing smite (encounter 1), acring smite (encounter 3), Radiant charge or whirlwind smite (encounter 13). The ones based on charisma are only available very late in the game (Hand of the gods (encounter 17), To the nine hells with you (daily 25), Restricting smite (encounter 27)).
Since the whole point of being a Defender is keeping your less durable allies from getting minced, these abilities were a must-have in my opinion. In the end, I went for strength first (18), cha second (16), and wis third (14), with the intention of boosting str and cha twice, and then str and con twice (to get my 13 con up to 17 in time for axe mastery at level 21).


As for taking damage vs the fighter: The paladin may be able to wear plate (Woo Hoo, +1 AC) but that gets lame at level 11 (trade 1 sq move for 1 AC? Nah.) The fighter, however, has many more abilities to replete his hit point pool. Also, the fighter can mark as many opponents as he can attack (and miss!), making it easier to act the defender. (try a dragonborn fighter with enlarged dragon's breath, for instance!)


----------



## Kzach (Aug 9, 2008)

I think the paladin is the worst designed of all the classes.

In fact, I would even go so far as to say it's not worthy of going into the PHB as it's not refined and ready enough to come out of play-testing.

It's clunky and doesn't perform it's role very well. The fundamental underpinnings of the class require you to spread your stats thinly in a system which is balanced on optimisation.

In every other class, I can focus on one primary stat and one modifier or secondary stat. In the paladin I need either a very high strength or a very high charisma as my primary to ensure I hit with my powers. Except the modifier stat for almost all my powers is Wisdom. This conflicts with the need for Constitution as a defender, especially given how a paladin will be burning healing surges faster than any other class.

And then on top of all of that, they make a Charisma based paladin ineffective in his primary role by dumping him with a plethora of ranged powers. Oh but wait, let's make a Strength-based paladin to fulfil his role as a defender and... oh... wait... we have to give him Charisma 'cause his challenge is based on it... but we have to give him Wisdom 'cause his power modifiers are based on it... but we have to give him Con or he's gonna go down fast and have to rest often from burning healing surges...

So you're either piss-weak, or piss-weak.

Get rid of the Wisdom requirement altogether, replacing it with Charisma and suddenly the paladin becomes a half-decent class. I say half-decent because realistically, the Charisma-based paladin is not a real option as a defender when you're forced to take ranged powers all the time.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 9, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> Now this assessment applies to a paladin focused on charisma, wisdom, and constitution. I do not think a strength based paladin would be as durable as a charisma based paladin.



So how are you going to effectively defend when you're provoking attacks of opportunity from the multiple opponents you're tanking, every time you use your Charisma-based powers (most of which are ranged)?


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 9, 2008)

Kzach said:


> So how are you going to effectively defend when you're provoking attacks of opportunity from the multiple opponents you're tanking, every time you use your Charisma-based powers (most of which are ranged)?




You should actually check out the powers that are Charisma-based. You would find that most are in fact not ranged, but instead based on weapon or close burst attacks.

All Level 1 dailies are ranged.
1 level 5 daily is ranged.
1 level 9 daily is ranged.
2 level 15 dailies are ranged.

So, all your encounter powers and at will powers will not be ranged powers. These are the powers that you will be using the most. Now, at level 1, your daily will be a ranged power. At level 5, you have the option of taking a charisma based power that is not ranged. At level 9, you also have that options. At level 15, you must take one again. Still, that means, that at level 20 (didn't check past that), your cha-based paladin has a whole of 2 combat powers that are ranged. 

2 powers out of what? 10 combat powers, not to mention the utility ones. I do not think that 20% qualifies as most, no matter where in the world you learned math.

EDIT: there is a level 7 encounter power that is ranged as well, but that one can be gotten around as well. So the numbers still stand.

EDIT 2: Actually since it is only dailies that can't be avoided, it is even better. Considering 3 combats a day, each of 6 rounds (pretty average) that would mean 20 powers fired off (that is included action points). Of those 20 powers used, 2 will be dailies that are ranged, thus 10% of the total.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Aug 9, 2008)

Corjay said:


> Evil is not a frame of mind. Unless they're insane, people don't just wake up and think about what they can do to be evil (contrary to much modern entertainment). They do evil things 1) under the misguided belief that they are doing right, or 2) they don't know how to be any other way.




Ah, let's not debate morality and alignment... entire postgraduate courses are dedicated to them in philosophy faculties and when we poor gamers try to emulate those debates, it always ends up in tears


----------



## Kzach (Aug 9, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> All Level 1 dailies are ranged.
> 1 level 5 daily is ranged.
> 1 level 9 daily is ranged.
> 2 level 15 dailies are ranged.




Let's do a little bit of correction here, since you're misrepresenting the facts.

If you make a Charisma-based pally, you'll want Wisdom to be decent as well since that's the stat that modifies your Charisma-based powers. That leaves enough points to have one more stat half decent and since you're gonna be in the thick of combat, trying to get as many opponents attacking you instead of everyone else, let's give it to Constitution.

That makes Strength a non-entity. Therefore, choosing any Strength-based powers is just retarded.

So, that narrows down your choices, wouldn't you agree?

Now, let's say that you're not an idiot and you don't think that provoking attacks of opportunity from multiple opponents is a great idea (remember, you're Mr. Defender, so you're in amongst all the bad guys TRYING to get hit). So you're not about to go and choose ranged powers, 'cause that would just be DUMB.

That leaves... oooh... let's look at your chart now:

Can't take any level 1 dailies.
Can only choose from 1 level 5 daily.
Can only choose from 2 level 9 dailies.
Can't choose any level 15 dailies!

But you're right, the paladin is well thought out and perfectly balanced.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 9, 2008)

Kzach said:


> That makes Strength a non-entity. Therefore, choosing any Strength-based powers is just retarded.




Building a Charisma-based paladin without Strength as his secondary ability score is just retarded. Wisdom is nice, but gimping your primary ability scores to add a little more temporary hit points or another use of lay on hands is silly.



> Now, let's say that you're not an idiot and you don't think that provoking attacks of opportunity from multiple opponents is a great idea (remember, you're Mr. Defender, so you're in amongst all the bad guys TRYING to get hit). So you're not about to go and choose ranged powers, 'cause that would just be DUMB.




Choosing Charisma, Wisdom, and Constitution as your primary ability scores and ignoring Strength entirely when fully half of the paladin's capabilities depend on it and when both builds point to it as a primary or secondary is dumb.



> But you're right, the paladin is well thought out and perfectly balanced.




It is. If you make silly choices, like ignoring Strength completely, you can gimp yourself. It's like gimping Dexterity as a ranger, then complaining that you're only limited to the two-weapon fighting stuff, as it's Strength-based, so the ranger is broken.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 9, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Building a Charisma-based paladin without Strength as his secondary ability score is just retarded. Wisdom is nice, but gimping your primary ability scores to add a little more temporary hit points or another use of lay on hands is silly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 9, 2008)

Kzach said:


> Thank you for proving my point.




So, your point is that the paladin is broken if you completely ignore what ability scores the class actually favors, as well as the advice given by the class's description?


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 9, 2008)

Kzach said:


> Let's do a little bit of correction here, since you're misrepresenting the facts.
> 
> If you make a Charisma-based pally, you'll want Wisdom to be decent as well since that's the stat that modifies your Charisma-based powers. That leaves enough points to have one more stat half decent and since you're gonna be in the thick of combat, trying to get as many opponents attacking you instead of everyone else, let's give it to Constitution.
> 
> ...




Sorry, but *you* seemed to have missed the point of all of this. *You* said that a charisma build is not viable because most of your powers will be ranged cha-based powers. I demonstrated that you can fill all your power slots with *only* cha-based powers and have only 2 ranged powers, and thus perform your job as defender quite well. Yes, you won't have a great str for OA attacks, there are ways to get around that problem as well, as I am sure you know. 

Sure you have less choices. _But that was not the point you made_. You said a cha-based paladin couldn't perform his duty as a defender, because he would be drawing OA's. The power list quite clearly shows it is possible to build one with only 2 dailies out of 10 combat powers being ranged. You were wrong.

Now is the build as  balanced and flexible as others? Maybe not, but it is pretty darn effective, in my limited experience.

And what is this none-sense about not being able to chose a daily, just because you only have ranged choices? Let me ask you - do you start every combat next to the monsters? If the answer is not yes, then the paladin has plenty of use of a ranged power or 2 (hell, maybe even 3 or 4).

Cheers


----------



## ppaladin123 (Aug 9, 2008)

I love paladins (big surprise given my handle, no?) and I am happy with the love they have received in 4th edition. That said, they are extremely MAD (multiple ability dependent), much more so than the other classes. That could make them difficult for newbies to play. When you take into account feat requirements (weapon mastery, heavy blade opportunity, etc.), secondary wisdom effects, constitution, and the divine challenge feature, you end up with plenty of stats to balance even if you focus only on strength or charisma powers. Intelligence is the only "dump stat."


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 10, 2008)

*re*



ppaladin123 said:


> I love paladins (big surprise given my handle, no?) and I am happy with the love they have received in 4th edition. That said, they are extremely MAD (multiple ability dependent), much more so than the other classes. That could make them difficult for newbies to play. When you take into account feat requirements (weapon mastery, heavy blade opportunity, etc.), secondary wisdom effects, constitution, and the divine challenge feature, you end up with plenty of stats to balance even if you focus only on strength or charisma powers. Intelligence is the only "dump stat."




You're right. I'm playing one right now. If I had to use the standard ability generation method used in the 4E PHB, I don't think I would like the Paladin very much. And they are pretty light on the good Str based powers for a Paladin. For encounter and daily powers Charisma seems much better than strength.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 10, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> And what is this none-sense about not being able to chose a daily, just because you only have ranged choices? Let me ask you - do you start every combat next to the monsters? If the answer is not yes, then the paladin has plenty of use of a ranged power or 2 (hell, maybe even 3 or 4).




Stop apologising for WotC's bad design decisions.

The paladin is a melee class with a good quarter of his powers being ranged.

The paladin requires decent Constitution to fulfil his role but has to split his ability points between three other stats.

At every step of designing a paladin character, you have to make compromising choices which gimp the character. It requires you to be a jack-of-all-trades and master of none.

It is badly designed, period.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 10, 2008)

Actually, I don't think there's anything wrong with the paladin that a few more power choices won't fix, and new powers are pretty easy to come by. Once that happens, paladin characters can safely dump either Strength or Charisma.

I will admit, though, that for my own paladin character, I went with relatively balanced stats in order to be reasonably effective at a variety of attacks, but selected encounter abilities that had the weapon keyword (to gain the weapon bonus to attacks) and targeted non-AC defences (which are usually lower), and became an elf to be even more sure of hitting when I want to with _elven accuracy_ (and further improved with Elven Precision). Statistics follow in the SBLOCK:
[SBLOCK]Rolen Brightsun
Male Elf Paladin 
Level 4

Str 14
Con 13
Dex 14
Int 10
Wis 16 (after L4 stat increase)
Cha 16 (after L4 stat increase)

AC 23
Fort 16
Ref 18
Will 17
Init +4
Spd 6 squares

HP 46; Bloodied 23
Healing surge value 11; 11 healing surges/day

Basic Attacks
 Bastard Sword +1 (standard; at-will) * Weapon
+8 vs. AC; 1d10 + 3 damage​At-Will Attacks
 Bolstering Strike (standard; at-will) * Divine, Weapon
+9 vs. AC; 1d10 + 4 damage and Rolen gains 3 temporary hit points.

 Holy Strike (standard; at-will) * Divine, Radiant, Weapon
+8 vs. AC; 1d10 + 3 radiant damage, or 1d10 + 6 radiant damage if the target is marked.

Divine Challenge (minor; at-will)

Lay on Hands (minor; at-will, 3/day)​Encounter Abilities
 Piercing Smite (standard; encounter) * Divine, Weapon
+8 vs. Reflex; 2d10 + 3 damage, and the target and 3 enemies adjacent to Rolen are marked until the end of his next turn.

 Invigorating smite (standard; encounter) * Divine, Weapon
+9 vs. Will; 2d10 + 4 damage, and if Rolen is bloodied, he regains 8 hit points. Bloodied allies within 5 squares also regain 8 hit points.

Channel Divinity: Divine Mettle or Divine Strength (minor; encounter)

Elven Accuracy (free; encounter)​Daily Ability
 Paladin's Judgment (standard; daily) * Divine, Healing, Weapon
+8 vs. AC; 3d10 + 3 damage.
Effect: One ally within 5 squares of Rolen can spend a healing surge.​Feats: Elven Precision, Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword), Warrior of the Wild

Equipment: _plate armor +1_, heavy shield, _amulet +1_, _bastard sword +1_[/SBLOCK]Actually, now that I think about it, paladins do get access to quite a number of weapon keyword attacks that target a non-AC defence. From my experience, this seems to be good enough to keep paladins with balanced ability scores viable.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 10, 2008)

I'm  a little disapointed in all the split-primary classes (Cleric, Paladin, Warlock, and, well, ranger not so much).   While it's theoretically possible to invest in both primaries and raise them both every level, thus being able to have a good power selection, the impulse to choose one or the other is understandibly strong.  Doing so gives you a restricted character.  It's especially evident with Cleric and Paladin.  If you go heavy into STR and don't invest much in the other primary, you have few power choices.  If you go the other way, your poor basic attacks hurt your versatility in combat, especially melee.  

I guess I notice this because I like playing the warlord who hands out free basic melee attacks - and I notice the WIS Cleric and CHA paladin just don't benefit.

The Warlock has the obvious power-selection problem, too, ameliorated somewhat by the existance of the Star pact, which adds some choices to it's more stat-specialized cousins.

The ranger mostly gets away from the problems, though.  An archer-ranger just ignores melee, so doesn't worry about not being able to make a decent OA or charge.  The TWF ranger hurts a little for AC, but is otherwise OK.  Both benefit because so many ranger powers are split-stat to match the class:  DEX for ranged, STR for melee.  So, the ranger has some decent variety of power choices, and the STR-focused ranger doesn't find itself lacking choice like the STR Cleric or Paladin.


Split-secondary classes, OTOH, seem to work fine.  You can invest in two secondaries if you want the versatility and expanded power choices.  Even the Warlock and Rogue, which limit the value of one of your secondary stats aren't too bad in restricting your choices - even the 'gimped' verisions of thier powers are occassionally viable.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 10, 2008)

FireLance said:


> Actually, now that I think about it, paladins do get access to quite a number of weapon keyword attacks that target a non-AC defence. From my experience, this seems to be good enough to keep paladins with balanced ability scores viable.




That's an interesting observation. I wonder how much this figured into balancing the classes... I've always just thought about how this effects the balances between individual powers, not the entire set of powers.


----------



## Styracosaurus (Aug 10, 2008)

I do not see how the paladin is gimped.
I do see that you should either be Strength and Wisdom or Charisma and  Wisdom.  Definitely not Str, Wis AND Cha or else you end up spreading yourself too thin.

Intelligence and Dexterity are throw away abilities.  You'll have a poor Reflex, but you're gonna have an Achilles heel for any character.  That leaves only four, so you could have 14 (or greater) in all four of the remaining abilities with just the standard point buy.

Ranged attacks with a range of 5 mean that you are in melee threat range and so you are still a melee character.  Consider if you have an action point or two.  Then for a round or two you can spread out the pain more efficiently.  It is punishing for an enemy to purposefully avoid standing near you as you have the ability to still strike them.  The short range attack also makes you more effective in a pursuit (with you wearing heavy armor).


----------



## glass (Aug 10, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> lay on hands as a minor action



Is it? Damn, that would have kept my paladin alive the other night!


glass.


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 10, 2008)

Thank goodness I don't play RPGA games so I'm not limited to using the point buy included in the book.  If I was limited to that as my only option tehre are several classes I would enjoy less.  As it is, in our games, the Paladin is just dandy.  The bonuses that come from Wisdom are more niceities than must haves.  Even having just a +1 or +2 on those will be cool.


----------



## Gothmog (Aug 10, 2008)

Kzach said:


> Stop apologising for WotC's bad design decisions.
> 
> The paladin is a melee class with a good quarter of his powers being ranged.
> 
> ...




Actually, its 14 out of 80 powers that are ranged, or 17.5% of them.  I didn't count the ones that were close burst, since they don't provoke OAs.

I've played a human paladin through 6 levels so far, and I have to say, I've found your assessments to be completely wrong.  My stats are (the DM used 25 point buy):

Str 18  Dex 10  Con 12  Int 10  Wis 14  Cha 16

HP 57  AC 24 (22 w/o shield)  Fort 20  Reflex 18  Will 19

Feats: Raven Queen's Blessing, WF: Longsword, Powerful Charge, Improved Initiative, Action Surge, Human Perseverance

Powers:
At Will: Valiant Strike +11 vs AC (+1 per surrounding enemy), d8+5 (this one is mandatory for a paladin- you basically don't miss using it)
Holy Strike +11 vs AC, d8+5
Bolstering Strike +10 vs AC, d8+5

Encounter: Fearsome Strike +10 vs AC, 2d8+5
Staggering Smite +11 vs AC, 2d8+5

Daily: On Pain of Death +7 vs Will, 3d8+4
Sign of Vulnerability +7 vs Will, 3d8+4 and vulnerable 5 radiant for rest of encounter

Utility: Sacred Circle
Wrath of the Gods (this one is AWESOME)

Dwarven Plate +1, +1 Longsword, +1 Amulet of Health, +1 Holy Symbol, Heavy Shield

Your main stats don't have to be 18s for you to be effective.  My paladin soaks up a lot of damage even with the mediocre Con because his AC and defenses are high.  Most of my encounter and daily powers are melee, with the exception of On Pain of Death and Sign of Vulnerability, and I use them pretty often.  Provoking AOs isn't really a concern for me, because I can always shift out of melee, use the ranged power, and be right back in the thick of it again easily next round.  Plus, I can use Divine Challenge on the guy I used the ranged power on, or a different target I will attack next round, increasing my "stickiness".  Being the defender, I opted not to go for a two-handed weapon in preference of defense, but I still do good damage, and I hit very often.

Yes, there is more of an attribute spread than most of the other classes, but that doesn't mean the class is badly designed.  I haven't found I've been gimped at all- if anything, the paladin seems a little too good in some aspects (hard to hit and decent damage dealer), and I have a good range of powers for a variety of situations.  Plus, since we have a Warlord in the group, and I have Action Surge, I usually use my Daily powers with the action point, giving me an additional +5 to the attack roll!  Weak or gimped?  Hardly.  This is the first time I've EVER enjoyed playing a paladin, because they are actually playable and well-designed now, rather than being the extreme one-trick ponies they used to be.


----------



## Ahglock (Aug 10, 2008)

SSquirrel said:


> Because the evil Cleric's party needs healed too?




I have no problem with evil gods providing healing, but the exact same healing the exact same destructive spells etc. seems weird.   I assume good gods need there faithful to kick butt, I assume evil gods want there faithful to live on to spread some more evil.  Evil gods would like be better at the spreading of destruction and not as good at the healing.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 10, 2008)

Styracosaurus said:


> Intelligence and Dexterity are throw away abilities.  You'll have a poor Reflex, but you're gonna have an Achilles heel for any character.  That leaves only four, so you could have 14 (or greater) in all four of the remaining abilities with just the standard point buy.




14's in your main stats is pretty much the poster-child definition of gimped.



Gothmog said:


> Ive played a human paladin through 6 levels so far, and I have to say, I've found your assessments to be completely wrong.  My stats are *(the DM used 25 point buy)*:
> 
> Your main stats don't have to be 18s for you to be effective.




Lol.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 11, 2008)

Kzach said:


> The paladin is a melee class with a good quarter of his powers being ranged.
> 
> The paladin requires decent Constitution to fulfil his role but has to split his ability points between three other stats.
> 
> ...



I've always thought of the Paladin as a hybrid class. In 4E it's a defender with a strong secondary leader aspect. I didn't have the impression that a Paladin has considerably more MAD than other classes.

Isn't it quite similar to, say, a Star-Pact Warlock? Or do you think that's another badly designed class/build?

I'm not saying you're wrong. I guess, you've spent more time analyzing the class than I did. I'm just curious since your stance seems pretty aggressive.

If I wanted to play a (pure) defender I'd always play a fighter but that has nothing to do with MAD. It's just that the powers seem to be more useful for the defender role. Depending on the group I could still see myself playing a paladin if it seems to be weak on either the defender or the leader 'front'.


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 11, 2008)

Kzach said:


> 14's in your main stats is pretty much the poster-child definition of gimped.




His only 14 is Wisdom.  Wisdom is neither the primary or secondary stat of a Paladin.  Calling it a main stat is kind of a joke.  We're sorry the facts don't support your hypothesis.


----------



## Gothmog (Aug 11, 2008)

Kzach said:


> Lol.




You do realize a snide remark doesn't refute an arguement?  Also, the one 18 I do have is due to the +2 bonus humans receive to any stat of their choice, and two stats were increased by +1 at 4th level, so the initial spread looked like:

Str 16(+2 for human) Dex 10 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 13(+1 at 4th) Cha 15(+1 at 4th)

I put the 18 into Strength because we don't have another defender/fighter in the group, but even with a 16, it wouldn't have been any problem.  Also, because we began play with 4 players, the DM allowed 25 point buy, but if you total up my beginning stats cost, they total 23 points (the other 2 points went towards getting a trained cross-class skill- a DM houserule).  Not that much above the 22 suggested in the book.

I also listed the stats so you'd see my defenses were not suffering at all, and are in fact the overall highest in the group.  My power attack bonuses are not "gimped" either, and while the damage output isn't huge, its not supposed to be either- thats the job of the ranger and rogue in the group.

Wisdom is not a main stat for the paladin- Str and Cha are.  Wisdom is nice to have since it gives you more uses per day of Lay on Hands, but thats pretty much it.  In fact, NONE of the paladin powers are based on Wisdom.  So again, your arguement doesn't hold water, and several posters have shown exactly why, AND provided the stats to prove it.

Have you actually played a paladin in 4th edition, or are you just going off a read-through of the rules?  As has been said ad nauseum, 4e plays a LOT different than it reads.  You do seem pretty aggressive in your dislike of the paladin- any reason for this?


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Aug 11, 2008)

Made myself a Half-Elf Raven Queen Paladin for an upcoming KotS campaign starting in september (even repainted a Karsite Fighter mini for him) and I can't wait to play him. I took Pact Initiate (Warlock Multiclass) so I could Divine Challenge + Eyebite at the beginning of the encouter. Hope it'll work!

AR


----------



## GnomeWorks (Aug 11, 2008)

The paladin's powers seem alright, sure, but they seem to lack tanking ability.

They really need consecrate to make them viable tanks. Consecrate would fit the flavor of 4e pallies, and help out with their lack of tanking power.

As it is, they just don't seem to generate enough threat. Divine Challenge just doesn't have the damage output to keep dudes on you, and tanking by virtue of damage output is a race you're going to lose against any DPS - not that I'm saying that the pally's damage output in 4e should be increased, it shouldn't be higher than that of DPS classes. But as it stands, their tanking is reliant pretty solely upon dudes not wanting to take the piddly damage from DC, which is a pretty poor tanking method.

Also, they have no AoE threat generation. So again, consecrate would do wonders to solve that problem.

For those who don't play WoW, consecrate is a pally spell that deals relatively holy damage over time to everything around you for eight seconds. It is key to pally tanking; without it, they really can't tank.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Aug 11, 2008)

Divine Challenge damage is small, yes- but at what point does a fighter's OA against a marked enemy start doing the same amount of damage on average? They both have the same "-2 to hit anybody but me" effect to discourage enemies from swinging elsewhere, and radiant damage resistance isn't nearly as common as radiant vulnerability.

In addition, it's inescapable damage. A DC'd minion either goes for the paladin or does nothing, because attacking anybody else is literal suicide. The paladin might not be able to lock down a lot of enemies at once with any particular ease, but he can ensure that any one minion never, ever attacks anybody but him.

I don't see much to worry about in terms of MAD. The paladin needs either Strength or Charisma, and then Wisdom. Dex and Intelligence are useless aside from Reflex defenses- which are boosted by a paladin's shield- and Constitution is something I'd cheerfully leave at 10. There's a reason a paladin starts with more base healing surges than anyone else.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 11, 2008)

Gothmog said:


> Wisdom is not a main stat for the paladin- Str and Cha are.  Wisdom is nice to have since it gives you more uses per day of Lay on Hands, but thats pretty much it.  In fact, NONE of the paladin powers are based on Wisdom.



WIS does affect how far you can fly using Radiant Charge (13th Paladin Encounter).


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 11, 2008)

I'm not sure if paladins were intentionally made excrutiatingly MAD as it was Wizards trying to make all the stats useful, to try and get rid of the "dump stat" mentality.


----------



## Schmoe (Aug 11, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:


> Divine Challenge damage is small, yes- but at what point does a fighter's OA against a marked enemy start doing the same amount of damage on average? They both have the same "-2 to hit anybody but me" effect to discourage enemies from swinging elsewhere, and radiant damage resistance isn't nearly as common as radiant vulnerability.
> 
> In addition, it's inescapable damage. A DC'd minion either goes for the paladin or does nothing, because attacking anybody else is literal suicide. The paladin might not be able to lock down a lot of enemies at once with any particular ease, but he can ensure that any one minion never, ever attacks anybody but him.




I agree with you here.  D&D isn't World of Warcraft.  Defenders aren't supposed to have a fool-proof threat mechanic, they are supposed to have tools to make them more attractive targets, _in addition to the tactical positioning and maneuvers that they used in previous additions._  A paladin will do a better job at protecting the casters than a rogue, and that's the point.



> I don't see much to worry about in terms of MAD. The paladin needs either Strength or Charisma, and then Wisdom. Dex and Intelligence are useless aside from Reflex defenses- which are boosted by a paladin's shield- and Constitution is something I'd cheerfully leave at 10. There's a reason a paladin starts with more base healing surges than anyone else.




Here I disagree.  I fail to see how someone can build an effective paladin if he prioritizes STR->WIS->CHA.  I could see CHA->WIS->STR, CHA->STR->WIS, or STR->CHA->WIS, but if you go with Strength first, I think you have to go with Charisma second, or you will simply be too limited.


----------



## jensun (Aug 11, 2008)

Kzach said:


> The paladin requires decent Constitution to fulfil his role but has to split his ability points between three other stats.



You are completely overrating the importance of constitution for defenders.  

The difference in total HP is very small and the extra healing surges can be compensated for by a single feat.  

While it may seem a bit odd Con can easily be left at 10 or 12 as a Paladin, especially as you start with Plate armour proficiency and a bucket load of Healing Surges.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 11, 2008)

jensun said:


> While it may seem a bit odd Con can easily be left at 10 or 12 as a Paladin, especially as you start with Plate armour proficiency and a bucket load of Healing Surges.



This.


----------

