GleefulNihilism Rants About 3.5E Paladins

[Aosaw]

I must say, X-Codes, I'm a little confused about the point you're trying to make. You want the paladin to be more versatile, but you don't want it to be just a difference of numbers, and you don't want the paladin to simply pursue different archetypes... You seem to think that only wizards are worth playing for this very reason, which is why you only play wizards...

Would you remind me again why you joined a discussion about paladins? I'd look back through the thread but I'm in the middle of packing; I can't recall if you've offered suggestions for how the paladin should be changed, and I wonder if you have any intention of making any. I can respect your position on the subject of melee characters in general, but I seem to remember that the goal of this thread was to fix the problems with the paladin, not merely (as the subject line suggests) to rant about the problems with all melee classes.

[X-Codes]

There is no flavor difference between the Paladin and a LG Crusader.

Originally Posted by Aosaw

I must say, X-Codes, I'm a little confused about the point you're trying to make. You want the paladin to be more versatile, but you don't want it to be just a difference of numbers, and you don't want the paladin to simply pursue different archetypes... You seem to think that only wizards are worth playing for this very reason, which is why you only play wizards...

Would you remind me again why you joined a discussion about paladins? I'd look back through the thread but I'm in the middle of packing; I can't recall if you've offered suggestions for how the paladin should be changed, and I wonder if you have any intention of making any. I can respect your position on the subject of melee characters in general, but I seem to remember that the goal of this thread was to fix the problems with the paladin, not merely (as the subject line suggests) to rant about the problems with all melee classes.

On many occasions I've explicitly described my points. Here's a short recap:

1) Paladins don't have MAD, mostly on account of stats not being all that important. Having 14 Strength instead of 18 Strength is a notable drawback for all of 2-3 levels, whereas the benefits of having 18 Charisma instead of 14 Charisma pay off for the vast majority of a Paladin's career. This is why I think changing their spell dependency from Wisdom to Charisma isn't particularly good, it's just a mediocre change that *looks* important.

2) Changing moderate-sized numbers to big numbers doesn't address any problems in 3.5e, it's just an invocation of cheap, linear thinking trying to be applied to a very multi-faceted game.

3) A quick and hacky fix was to replace Paladin spellcasting with Crusader maneuvers. I think this does more than the PF changes do for the Paladin on account of the Paladin getting more combat options and generally being able to do a slightly wider variety of things, but I think it can be done better. This was just my idea based solely on about 10 minutes of thinking. It's kind of a shame that nobody compounded on it to create something a little better. If you want me to do something with the class then give me a few days and I'll put together something more interesting.

[Aosaw]

My point was that for the most part it seems that your contribution to the discussion has been more or less comprised of jabs at paladins (and, in some cases, at those who play them), rather than any attempt to improve the design. Your "quick fix" was a decent suggestion, except that since then we've heard nothing but complaints about melee classes, Pathfinder, and 4th Edition. Complaints with which I do not necessarily disagree, mind you, but they are not very helpful, and as you can see they've derailed the thread to an unfortunate degree.

If you have any ideas, please offer them. Maybe taking a few days to think about it will yield more useful results for those of us who do not exclusively play wizards.

[X-Codes]

Please, pay attention to the discussion. The thread was derailed by all of you people obsessing over my argument that giving paladins higher stats won't fix them, and the only people taking jabs around here are those commenting on how I only play Wizards.

[KithKunabi]

You people?

What's that supposed to mean?

[loki_ragnarock]

Here's the reason I like the Pathfinder Paladin:

It plays to the paladin theme, as established in 3.5, and to the older paladin theme, as established in previous generations of the game.

Which is to say, a paladin walks into a room without fear, secure in the knowledge that because his cause is just he will be able to overcome.

Here's how it plays to that:
Immunities beyond disease and fear.
Maintaining bonuses to saves.
Two good saves.
Fixing MAD, which remains a very real issue with the base 3.5 paladin.
More effective self-healing.

It wasn't really the smiting thing that was their focus; it was the enduring thing. The ability to endure the things that the forces of evil would throw at him, to face confidently those things that others would flee from, and thusly inspire others to stand with him against those evils.

That's the essence of a paladin to me. And the mechanics of the Pathfinder Paladin support that idea more effectively than most alternates that I see being tossed around. A fighter or a barbarian can stick a sword into a thing from nightmares, but a paladin can look into the very eye of horror and be unafraid. A fighter or barbarian can grope their way through the murky depths of a compulsion, but a paladin is never tempted away from his duty, by magic or nature. A fighter or barbarian can stop an evil by destroying it, but a paladin can cleanse lingering effects of the evil through healing, both for himself and others.
That's the beginnings of the idea for what a paladin should be, thematically.

Anywho, too much sun, not enough sleep, going to bed.