Paladins: Why the Suck and how to Un-suck them

[Darkpriest]

Paladins have best all around defenses if going for tank mode, sure, they MIGHT have slightly less deflection but their other defenses are through the roof along with deflection if you build it well, + it gives auras for what you need. The active abilities are meh... but if you build them around passives and auras, they can soak up any form of attack and laugh at it.

[dukefx]

I agree on that one, they do have the best saves.

[Crucis]

 

 

 

It's not the criticism I'm criticizing.  It's the totally over-the-top nature of the criticism.

 

 

Yknow I do it over-the-top specifically to annoy people like you who can't take a joke worth a damn? I'm 100% serious here.

 

 

You want jokes, go to a comedy club.  I'm not here for humor.  I'm here to discuss this game.

 

And people who do things just to annoy other people are pretty pathetic.

 

Edited April 12, 2015 by Crucis

[Crucis]

Let me put it this way:

 

 

If you go to the Pillars of Eternity Gamepedia, classes get listed with different roles. Wizard and Druid are "mob ruler," Fighter, Barb and Monk are "Front Line," Cipher, Ranger and Rogue are "Heavy Hitter," and Chanter, Priest and Paladin are "Leaders."

 

Try to imagine a squad where you only bring one of each type. AKA, imagine you're forced to choose between Wizard and Druid, to choose between Fighter Barb and Monk, to choose between Cipher, Ranger and Rogue....

 

If you have to choose one of each type to build a four man party? You will never choose Paladin for your leader slot. Chanter and Priest is a toss-up, cause even though Priest feels like a staple, a Chanter's summons can single-handedly turn a fight around. Paladin? You'd never in a million years choose to skip Chanter and Priest to bring a Paladin. That's exactly the problem.

 

 

I'd do it in a heartbeat and it wouldn't take a million years to decide to do it.

 

[Gromnir]

 

Let me put it this way:

 

 

If you go to the Pillars of Eternity Gamepedia, classes get listed with different roles. Wizard and Druid are "mob ruler," Fighter, Barb and Monk are "Front Line," Cipher, Ranger and Rogue are "Heavy Hitter," and Chanter, Priest and Paladin are "Leaders."

 

Try to imagine a squad where you only bring one of each type. AKA, imagine you're forced to choose between Wizard and Druid, to choose between Fighter Barb and Monk, to choose between Cipher, Ranger and Rogue....

 

If you have to choose one of each type to build a four man party? You will never choose Paladin for your leader slot. Chanter and Priest is a toss-up, cause even though Priest feels like a staple, a Chanter's summons can single-handedly turn a fight around. Paladin? You'd never in a million years choose to skip Chanter and Priest to bring a Paladin. That's exactly the problem.

 

 

I'd do it in a heartbeat and it wouldn't take a million years to decide to do it.

 

 

paladins have nice and dependable auras as well as situationally useful cleanses, buffs and debuffs. chanters have a handful o' extreme good chants and very powerful invocations, but the need to wait on invocation ripeness is an annoyance to us.  is not difficult to make a paladin or chanter a reliable off-tank, particularly after 1.03 when the chanter-specific talents is hardly worth the investment.  am a big fan o' priests, but they is tending to be far more squishy than paladins or chanters, and particular at low levels, we is hoarding spells to avoid the need to rest. is benefits and drawbacks to all three.

 

an islander ooh mau mau, shama lama ding dong, gunner paladin who can sit back and take advantage o' inspiring triumph is something we is gonna give a try on our next run.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 13, 2015 by Gromnir

[Evange]

Dear fellow PoE-ers,

 

This is a RPG and not an action game nor a MMO. Stop talking about which class is the best tank, support or dps. We play different classes or choose different companions for the unique interactions and quest outcomes.

 

If I want to play a game where I can enjoy my character having 134774789 deflection or dealing 345854478 damage I'll go with Dark Souls 2 or Diablo 3.

[eubatham]

Dear fellow PoE-ers,

 

This is a RPG and not an action game nor a MMO. Stop talking about which class is the best tank, support or dps. We play different classes or choose different companions for the unique interactions and quest outcomes.

 

If I want to play a game where I can enjoy my character having 134774789 deflection or dealing 345854478 damage I'll go with Dark Souls 2 or Diablo 3.

 

You're talking about an RPG, to be even more precise an RPG that's a callback to old CRPG's, that (like almost every other RPG) has stats (and a great many factors depending on these stats) and not some adventure game or visual novel. You could say that stats are even more detrimental in this game than in Diablo 3, due to how much more potent each stat point is and how much more sparse they are.

 

Considering your statement, you make it seem clear that you have no interest in discussing or debating class balance. So why do you even bother to enter a topic that concerns class balance in the first place?

 

I'd do it in a heartbeat and it wouldn't take a million years to decide to do it.

 

And why would you do this? At least give a reason why you'd take a Paladin 'in a heartbeat' over a Priest or Druid? You'd pick a class who's support pales (and is rendered moot) in comparison to either of those classes to do exactly what? Fill a role in a group that a fighter will perform noticeably better (or at least argue why it's not better than a 2nd fighter)?

 

Please, either retire from the thread or at least stop trolling.

Edited April 13, 2015 by eubatham

[Crucis]

 

I'd do it in a heartbeat and it wouldn't take a million years to decide to do it.

 

And why would you do this? At least give a reason why you'd take a Paladin 'in a heartbeat' over a Priest or Druid? You'd pick a class who's support pales (and is rendered moot) in comparison to either of those classes to do exactly what? Fill a role in a group that a fighter will perform noticeably better?

 

Please, either retire from the thread or at least stop trolling.

 

 

I already gave my reason a while back, if you'd bothered to read it and remember.

 

But here, I'll save you the trouble of looking....

 

 

 

No, paladins are not the best tanks in the game.  That's just absurd.  I've tried and tried to figure out how to insert a paladin into a party but, in the end, some other class is usually better suited to the role I'm looking for.  I think paladins in their current incarnation are best suited for escort duty at the stronghold.

 

Oh boo-hoo.  So paladins aren't the best at something.  For crying out loud, that does NOT mean that they're not ill-suited to being in a party.  Everyone on a party doesn't have to be the best at something.  Jeez. 

 

 

I have Pallegine in my party.  Would I be better off with another Fighter instead of her to be a second tank?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  Would this supposed second fighter be a better pure tank, similar to Eder?  Probably.  OTOH, he wouldn't be giving the party the various bonuses that a padadin can constantly provide. 

 

Is that enough to justify using a paladin rather than a second fighter?  Perhaps not to some people, but a second (particularly a custom made) fighter in a party that already has Eder would seem boring to me.  Seems to me that if you want a second tank in the party, it should be of another class, whether that's a paladin, a barbarian, a monk, etc.  And it's also about play style and role playing preferences.  I happen to like paladins and like having them in my parties.  They very well may not be the most powerful or efficient choice, but I still like having a paladin in my part regardless.  Other people may love monks or barbs in this slot. And if so, good for them.

 

 

And I will NOT retire from the thread and I am NOT "trolling", whatever that means in whatever context you're saying it.  I am giving my honest opinion without any hyperbole (to the best of my ability) or foul language and as respectfully as possible.  If you can't handle that, that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Epsilon Rose]

When you come down to it, flavor is a pretty bad consideration when it comes to class balance. Yes, you should have flavorful classes and, yes, you should play the class that you like the flavor of the most. However, that does not mean a class should sacrifice power for flavor, nor does it have to. A flavor full class is good and an effective, but boring, class is still boring, but an effective and flavorful class is the best. Paladins have some flavor, but they aren't very effective at what they do. They don't have a niche that they're best at filling and the way their powers work and advancement is handled means they can't be effective generalists in multiple niches either. This is important because, while players who are die hard paladin fans will play them regardless of their strength, players without strong feelings for paladins will have a hard time finding a reason to fit them into a line-up and even those die hard fans would, likely, have a better time playing with them if they filled a niche better or were better at being generalists.

 

 

You gave a reason why you would choose the class, but it had nothing to do with the actual mechanics of the class. You didn't tell us what features you like over other options and how they fill that roll better than the other options (or how they can sufficiently fill multiple rolls well enough to free up other spaces). All you told us is you like paladins and dislike homogeneity as concepts. In a discussion about the mechanics of a class, this is not useful information, nor is it valid reasoning.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Epsilon Rose

[Odd Hermit]

Dear fellow PoE-ers,

 

This is a RPG and not an action game nor a MMO. Stop talking about which class is the best tank, support or dps. We play different classes or choose different companions for the unique interactions and quest outcomes.

 

If I want to play a game where I can enjoy my character having 134774789 deflection or dealing 345854478 damage I'll go with Dark Souls 2 or Diablo 3.

 

It's an RPG with many hours worth of combat, and combat-focused character building. Some people like building efficiently and want classes to offer variety with balance. You can create an entire custom party so clearly they've made this game for people who like either or both, and there's no good reason for you to tell people to talk stopping about one aspect of the game. Especially in the character builds and strategies sub forum...

[HozzM]

Fighters are the best tanks bar none and Paladins could use some tweaks, but that said I like them. On Hard, I use Pallegina as a 2h wielding off tank and she works great in that capacity, as well as providing some always on buffs and having access to some very nice per encounter abilities.

[illathid]

Something the OP doesn't take into account regarding the Paladin's tankyness: opportunity cost. Paladin's get Faith and Conviction automatically, and if it's a PC you're pretty much guaranteed to have great defenses, regardless of which other abilities and talents you choose. The fighter, however, has to invest his talents and abilities in to making sure he's a good tank.

[Crucis]

When you come down to it, flavor is a pretty bad consideration when it comes to class balance. Yes, you should have flavorful classes and, yes, you should play the class that you like the flavor of the most. However, that does not mean a class should sacrifice power for flavor, nor does it have to. A flavor full class is good and an effective, but boring, class is still boring, but an effective and flavorful class is the best. Paladins have some flavor, but they aren't very effective at what they do. They don't have a niche that they're best at filling and the way their powers work and advancement is handled means they can't be effective generalists in multiple niches either. This is important because, while players who are die hard paladin fans will play them regardless of their strength, players without strong feelings for paladins will have a hard time finding a reason to fit them into a line-up and even those die hard fans would, likely, have a better time playing with them if they filled a niche better or were better at being generalists.

 

 

You gave a reason why you would choose the class, but it had nothing to do with the actual mechanics of the class. You didn't tell us what features you like over other options and how they fill that roll better than the other options (or how they can sufficiently fill multiple rolls well enough to free up other spaces). All you told us is you like paladins and dislike homogeneity as concepts. In a discussion about the mechanics of a class, this is not useful information, nor is it valid reasoning.

 

I beg to differ.  I gave you my reason.  I like paladins from a role playing perspective.  This is a role playing game and choosing to like a particular class from a role playing perspective is a completely valid choice.  I also happen to like Rangers, and my first PC happens to be a Ranger.

 

My decision to like Paladins (and Rangers) has nothing to do with game mechanics.  I liked Paladins in BG1 and 2, and in IWD1 and 2.  And I still like Paladins ... for reasons that have nothing to do with game mechanics.  And IMO why I choose to like paladins is every bit as valid a reason for doing so as some game mechanics reason.  I prefer games like this for the role playing.  I'm not looking to create a party of min-maxed OP characters and have no intention of judging any class from that perspective.

 

 

[Epsilon Rose]

 

When you come down to it, flavor is a pretty bad consideration when it comes to class balance. Yes, you should have flavorful classes and, yes, you should play the class that you like the flavor of the most. However, that does not mean a class should sacrifice power for flavor, nor does it have to. A flavor full class is good and an effective, but boring, class is still boring, but an effective and flavorful class is the best. Paladins have some flavor, but they aren't very effective at what they do. They don't have a niche that they're best at filling and the way their powers work and advancement is handled means they can't be effective generalists in multiple niches either. This is important because, while players who are die hard paladin fans will play them regardless of their strength, players without strong feelings for paladins will have a hard time finding a reason to fit them into a line-up and even those die hard fans would, likely, have a better time playing with them if they filled a niche better or were better at being generalists.

 

 

You gave a reason why you would choose the class, but it had nothing to do with the actual mechanics of the class. You didn't tell us what features you like over other options and how they fill that roll better than the other options (or how they can sufficiently fill multiple rolls well enough to free up other spaces). All you told us is you like paladins and dislike homogeneity as concepts. In a discussion about the mechanics of a class, this is not useful information, nor is it valid reasoning.

 

I beg to differ.  I gave you my reason.  I like paladins from a role playing perspective.  This is a role playing game and choosing to like a particular class from a role playing perspective is a completely valid choice.  I also happen to like Rangers, and my first PC happens to be a Ranger.

 

My decision to like Paladins (and Rangers) has nothing to do with game mechanics.  I liked Paladins in BG1 and 2, and in IWD1 and 2.  And I still like Paladins ... for reasons that have nothing to do with game mechanics.  And IMO why I choose to like paladins is every bit as valid a reason for doing so as some game mechanics reason.  I prefer games like this for the role playing.  I'm not looking to create a party of min-maxed OP characters and have no intention of judging any class from that perspective.

 

It's a completely valid choice when deciding what to play. It has literally nothing to do with the balance or mechanics of a class. I keep seeing people bring up that this is a rpg as if that somehow negates the stats and abilities and all the other aspects of an RPG and only leaves you with the stories you tell.

 

If your decisions and opinions have nothing to do with mechanics, then might I kindly suggest that you should not be in a sub-forum dedicated to mechanics in a thread that discusses mechanics. Nothing that has been suggested in this thread, nor any of the criticisms that have been levied, touch on the flavor of the class. It would have the exact same flavor if flames became an at will ability, a modal, 3 times per rest or was completely replaced by something else.

[Crucis]

 

 

When you come down to it, flavor is a pretty bad consideration when it comes to class balance. Yes, you should have flavorful classes and, yes, you should play the class that you like the flavor of the most. However, that does not mean a class should sacrifice power for flavor, nor does it have to. A flavor full class is good and an effective, but boring, class is still boring, but an effective and flavorful class is the best. Paladins have some flavor, but they aren't very effective at what they do. They don't have a niche that they're best at filling and the way their powers work and advancement is handled means they can't be effective generalists in multiple niches either. This is important because, while players who are die hard paladin fans will play them regardless of their strength, players without strong feelings for paladins will have a hard time finding a reason to fit them into a line-up and even those die hard fans would, likely, have a better time playing with them if they filled a niche better or were better at being generalists.

 

 

You gave a reason why you would choose the class, but it had nothing to do with the actual mechanics of the class. You didn't tell us what features you like over other options and how they fill that roll better than the other options (or how they can sufficiently fill multiple rolls well enough to free up other spaces). All you told us is you like paladins and dislike homogeneity as concepts. In a discussion about the mechanics of a class, this is not useful information, nor is it valid reasoning.

 

I beg to differ.  I gave you my reason.  I like paladins from a role playing perspective.  This is a role playing game and choosing to like a particular class from a role playing perspective is a completely valid choice.  I also happen to like Rangers, and my first PC happens to be a Ranger.

 

My decision to like Paladins (and Rangers) has nothing to do with game mechanics.  I liked Paladins in BG1 and 2, and in IWD1 and 2.  And I still like Paladins ... for reasons that have nothing to do with game mechanics.  And IMO why I choose to like paladins is every bit as valid a reason for doing so as some game mechanics reason.  I prefer games like this for the role playing.  I'm not looking to create a party of min-maxed OP characters and have no intention of judging any class from that perspective.

 

It's a completely valid choice when deciding what to play. It has literally nothing to do with the balance or mechanics of a class. I keep seeing people bring up that this is a rpg as if that somehow negates the stats and abilities and all the other aspects of an RPG and only leaves you with the stories you tell.

 

If your decisions and opinions have nothing to do with mechanics, then might I kindly suggest that you should not be in a sub-forum dedicated to mechanics in a thread that discusses mechanics. Nothing that has been suggested in this thread, nor any of the criticisms that have been levied, touch on the flavor of the class. It would have the exact same flavor if flames became an at will ability, a modal, 3 times per rest or was completely replaced by something else.

 

 

And I would kindly point out that the subforum is doesn't include the word "mechanics" anywhere.

 

 

[Epsilon Rose]

 

 

 

When you come down to it, flavor is a pretty bad consideration when it comes to class balance. Yes, you should have flavorful classes and, yes, you should play the class that you like the flavor of the most. However, that does not mean a class should sacrifice power for flavor, nor does it have to. A flavor full class is good and an effective, but boring, class is still boring, but an effective and flavorful class is the best. Paladins have some flavor, but they aren't very effective at what they do. They don't have a niche that they're best at filling and the way their powers work and advancement is handled means they can't be effective generalists in multiple niches either. This is important because, while players who are die hard paladin fans will play them regardless of their strength, players without strong feelings for paladins will have a hard time finding a reason to fit them into a line-up and even those die hard fans would, likely, have a better time playing with them if they filled a niche better or were better at being generalists.

 

 

You gave a reason why you would choose the class, but it had nothing to do with the actual mechanics of the class. You didn't tell us what features you like over other options and how they fill that roll better than the other options (or how they can sufficiently fill multiple rolls well enough to free up other spaces). All you told us is you like paladins and dislike homogeneity as concepts. In a discussion about the mechanics of a class, this is not useful information, nor is it valid reasoning.

 

I beg to differ.  I gave you my reason.  I like paladins from a role playing perspective.  This is a role playing game and choosing to like a particular class from a role playing perspective is a completely valid choice.  I also happen to like Rangers, and my first PC happens to be a Ranger.

 

My decision to like Paladins (and Rangers) has nothing to do with game mechanics.  I liked Paladins in BG1 and 2, and in IWD1 and 2.  And I still like Paladins ... for reasons that have nothing to do with game mechanics.  And IMO why I choose to like paladins is every bit as valid a reason for doing so as some game mechanics reason.  I prefer games like this for the role playing.  I'm not looking to create a party of min-maxed OP characters and have no intention of judging any class from that perspective.

 

It's a completely valid choice when deciding what to play. It has literally nothing to do with the balance or mechanics of a class. I keep seeing people bring up that this is a rpg as if that somehow negates the stats and abilities and all the other aspects of an RPG and only leaves you with the stories you tell.

 

If your decisions and opinions have nothing to do with mechanics, then might I kindly suggest that you should not be in a sub-forum dedicated to mechanics in a thread that discusses mechanics. Nothing that has been suggested in this thread, nor any of the criticisms that have been levied, touch on the flavor of the class. It would have the exact same flavor if flames became an at will ability, a modal, 3 times per rest or was completely replaced by something else.

 

 

And I would kindly point out that the subforum is doesn't include the word "mechanics" anywhere.

 

 

 

No, but it does include Builds, Strategies, and Unity Engine, all of which have much more to do with mechanics than fluff. It also does not change the fact that this thread is solely about mechanics.

[Longknife]

Something the OP doesn't take into account regarding the Paladin's tankyness: opportunity cost. Paladin's get Faith and Conviction automatically, and if it's a PC you're pretty much guaranteed to have great defenses, regardless of which other abilities and talents you choose. The fighter, however, has to invest his talents and abilities in to making sure he's a good tank.

 

 

Because this is hardly an issue. Get Defender Mode, get Wary Defender and GG you're good. Since Fighters are usually brought along specifically for the purpose of tanking, who is going to mind spending these levels on that ability?

 

Likewise, Faith and Conviction is not automatic on NPC Paladins, which is part of the problem.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Longknife

[dukefx]

What do you mean by not automatic? 0_o

[Doug]

Hands down least enjoyable class i've played.

So +1 to OP

[AlphaMagnum]

Is it a problem that Paladins can't tank as well as fighters, heal as well as priests, or deal damage like Rogues and Barbarian's?

 

I mean, if I could build a pally to out-dps my rogue, whose only capability is damage-dealing, I think there would be an entirely different balance issue at hand.

 

In my eyes, the value of a paladin is that while you may not tank as well as a fighter, you do it while providing party-wide buffs to damage or survivability, and while also healing a little on demand. Likewise for a DPS pally -- you may not out-damage a Rogue but you'll certainly off-tank more effectively and you'll be buffing the whole party and healing a bit, neither of which the Rogue can do.

 

Ultimately, you don't do one thing very well because the specialized classes (Fighter, Rogue, etc) have the specialist roles. Your role as a paladin is to do a little of everything.

 

Now, one concern here is that taking one or more such hybrids is inferior to making a party purely filled with specialists like 2 Fighters (tanks), 1 Wizard (CC), 1 Cipher (CC/DPS), 1 Rogue (DPS), 1 Priest (Buffs/Heals). How big is the gap, though? Balance is an ideal and I don't expect perfect balance; so long as things are reasonably close (for some subjective value of reasonable), I'd be satisfied.

[Exoduss]

I wonder how hard people would cry if paladin actually was a better tank than fighter and better healer and buffer than priest, would that even make any sense at all? the only problem i see with paladins at the moment is that : Only your PC can be a proper loladin , thats just harsh other than that they are more than fine , its better to have chanter and pala as your tanks than any combination of fighter+another just because of the buffs you get , as i said atleast 25 times in this forum , as long as your tanks hold agro and dont die you dont need them to be any better at tanking , and if you dont manage thease things its not paladin its probably just you being to lazy and to ego to concentrate on a fight and micromanage it for the win . Another thing to add : we got a guy who soloed POTD with paladin any more proof you need before crying will stop ? 

[eubatham]

I'll post here what I've written somewhere else too, concerning the subject.

 

"Hey, at least you can finish the game with them", high praise for a game that's being completed with one class.

 

The Paladin is one of the weakest classes, yeah. They're weaker tanks than fighters and if the Paladin isn't a player character, they won't get "Faith and Conviction". Meaning that they're almost no better than a Barbarian or Monk when it comes to tanking. It's not that you can't finish the game with your Paladin as a main tank, but a Fighter will be much, much easier when it comes to control (stuns, pulls), defenses (although a Paladin might have slighter higher saves as long as a fighter doesn't use "Vigorous Defense") and keeping enemies stuck to them (he'll always keep 2 more targets engaged). Items can help out later on but fighters can use the same items, so you're really always walking in the shadow of a fighter.

 

Ah, but Paladins bring support! True, but it's fairly weak support in general? Take the aura's; tiny, tiny range. Plus many of the benefits that they provide don't stack with other similar effects from other spells from other classes (which often give one or two bonuses per spell). "But they're always on, instead of having to cast them every time!", you might say. And you're right, but you won't really run into heavy fight after heavy fight until the end of the game, when other casters have a ton of spells per rest and their level 1-2 spells can be used per encounter.

 

Then you have the problem that other supportive abilities are single target, like Liberating Exhortation, in a game where negative effects are often applied through AoE fields. It's made even worse by the fact that if you have a front-line Paladin you'll (probably) have put little into Dexterity and you're wearing heavy armor, so you have very few actions. So you need to keep up with AoE debuffs being spammed everywhere with one or two single target abilities (per fight/rest). To make it even worse, is that other classes can do the same thing (apply most of the same debuffs and buffs) in an AoE field with other benefits attached to it. And no, their duration isn't that much shorter than those of the Paladin. The only real useful and unique thing a Paladin brings, is their resurrection spell. But it is very, very limited in its usefulness (especially for low endurance characters, that can't survive the reduction in endurance after a short while).

 

To finish it off, a Paladin can make their Flames of Devotion extremely potent. Making it deal fairly large damage and/or give strong buffs. However as spellcasters start out with a meager 2/rest spells at level 1 and end up with 8/encounter and 16/rest, a Paladin heavily specializing into Flames of Devotion (or to minor extent Lay on Hands) at level 12 is still only able to use 2 per encounter. This alone is completely and utterly ridiculous.

 

Phew, so there you have it. "But the Paladin is a hybrid, it can do all those things at the same time!", no, other classes are hybrids too and can do the same things a Paladin can. The only thing where a Paladin has a slight edge over the other classes, is tanking (but again, even this is rendered moot when the Paladin isn't a player character). "But there are a million different combinations, people can't figure it out since the sky is the ceiling when it comes to builds!", well... no. You can forget that way of thinking considering that class abilities are quite limited and well documented. Many builds are possible, especially with the amount of 'general' traits, but each class is limited to its (well know) potential.

 

The best way to play a Paladin at the moment is to use him or her as an off-tank to buff the main tank. But even then, the only reason for really bringing a Paladin instead of another fighter is because you want a Paladin in your group. Which is a shame, because it's one of the most fun classes to roleplay in the game. So you can have a Paladin in your group and finish the game just fine (again, the game is being solo'd) but when you need to resort to this fact, along with 'hey, you have 5 other partymembers to make up for him', you can't really call it an alright class.

 

Are they beyond hope? No, they aren't. A few easy fixes would bring up their usability and build variety up to par with other classes.

 

For example, make aura's party wide. Their current range is ridiculously small (even with 18 INT) and their buffs are minor (but still nice when no other effect from another class is active). Make Flames of Devotion uses/encounter increase by 1 every 2 levels, starting at level 1->3->5->7->9->11 (so at level 12 you'd have 6 uses). Lay on hands can use a similar treatment, although 2 or 3 charges is sufficient by level 12.

 

Faith and Conviction needs to be given to none player character Paladins. They are seriously hurt by not having access to such a core ability. Yes, it means you need to keep in mind that you have a Paladin in your group when it comes to roleplaying, but I consider that a good thing.

 

Spells like Liberating Exhortation are currently utter crap, especially considering that priests have access to an AoE versions of some of these. It just doesn't work in its current version (again, especially since many debuffs are AoE) and should either also become an AoE effect or be reworked. Others, like example Sworn Enemy, could do with a 1/encounter instead of 3/rest.

 

Finally, considering that out of the 5 possible class talents it would mean dedicating 3 out of those 5 to it, would it really be THAT overpowered to allow Paladin "Zealous Aura's" to stack? Keep in mind that the earliest a full "auradin" would be active is at level 7, with no other chosen talents (apart from the level 1 talents).

 

"But this would make Paladins powerful! You can't do that!", well that's the point. To make Paladins feel powerful, since other classes feel really powerful and potent at level 12. When other classes gain in levels, you basically go from "oh" to "wow" to "holy crap". However, with the Paladin it's currently "meh" from level 1 to 12.

Edited April 13, 2015 by eubatham

[dukefx]

Is it a problem that Paladins can't tank as well as fighters, heal as well as priests, or deal damage like Rogues and Barbarian's?

 

I mean, if I could build a pally to out-dps my rogue, whose only capability is damage-dealing, I think there would be an entirely different balance issue at hand.

 

In my eyes, the value of a paladin is that while you may not tank as well as a fighter, you do it while providing party-wide buffs to damage or survivability, and while also healing a little on demand. Likewise for a DPS pally -- you may not out-damage a Rogue but you'll certainly off-tank more effectively and you'll be buffing the whole party and healing a bit, neither of which the Rogue can do.

 

Ultimately, you don't do one thing very well because the specialized classes (Fighter, Rogue, etc) have the specialist roles. Your role as a paladin is to do a little of everything.

 

Now, one concern here is that taking one or more such hybrids is inferior to making a party purely filled with specialists like 2 Fighters (tanks), 1 Wizard (CC), 1 Cipher (CC/DPS), 1 Rogue (DPS), 1 Priest (Buffs/Heals). How big is the gap, though? Balance is an ideal and I don't expect perfect balance; so long as things are reasonably close (for some subjective value of reasonable), I'd be satisfied.

You are totally right about that, but you clearly didn't read through the posts. We all know the paladin is a jack-of-all-trades and shouldn't be doing more damage than lets say a rogue, tank better than a fighter, or heal better than a priest. To put this into an easy to understand example: 1 fighter + 1 rogue + 1 priest > 3 paladins.

I've had fun with 3 wizards, even had a full party of barbarians and they were all OK. Try that with paladins.

[Longknife]

Is it a problem that Paladins can't tank as well as fighters, heal as well as priests, or deal damage like Rogues and Barbarian's?

 

I mean, if I could build a pally to out-dps my rogue, whose only capability is damage-dealing, I think there would be an entirely different balance issue at hand.

 

Ultimately, you don't do one thing very well because the specialized classes (Fighter, Rogue, etc) have the specialist roles. Your role as a paladin is to do a little of everything.

 

 

But that's just it. Re-read my examples.

 

A Paladin could get superior defenses to Fighter without being OP because the Fighter still has better control skills and a better engagement limit.

A Paladin could get tons of damage added onto Flames of Devotion and still fall behind Rogue and Wizard because Paladin's damage output would die the moment both casts were used.

A Paladin could get the range on modals tweaked and upped drastically and still wouldn't hold a candle to priest.

 

 

That's the point: Paladin is so far in the hole that you can buff it's stats across the board and STILL have it be balanced without taking away from other classes.

[constantine]

 

 

When you come down to it, flavor is a pretty bad consideration when it comes to class balance. Yes, you should have flavorful classes and, yes, you should play the class that you like the flavor of the most. However, that does not mean a class should sacrifice power for flavor, nor does it have to. A flavor full class is good and an effective, but boring, class is still boring, but an effective and flavorful class is the best. Paladins have some flavor, but they aren't very effective at what they do. They don't have a niche that they're best at filling and the way their powers work and advancement is handled means they can't be effective generalists in multiple niches either. This is important because, while players who are die hard paladin fans will play them regardless of their strength, players without strong feelings for paladins will have a hard time finding a reason to fit them into a line-up and even those die hard fans would, likely, have a better time playing with them if they filled a niche better or were better at being generalists.

 

 

You gave a reason why you would choose the class, but it had nothing to do with the actual mechanics of the class. You didn't tell us what features you like over other options and how they fill that roll better than the other options (or how they can sufficiently fill multiple rolls well enough to free up other spaces). All you told us is you like paladins and dislike homogeneity as concepts. In a discussion about the mechanics of a class, this is not useful information, nor is it valid reasoning.

I beg to differ. I gave you my reason. I like paladins from a role playing perspective. This is a role playing game and choosing to like a particular class from a role playing perspective is a completely valid choice. I also happen to like Rangers, and my first PC happens to be a Ranger.

 

My decision to like Paladins (and Rangers) has nothing to do with game mechanics. I liked Paladins in BG1 and 2, and in IWD1 and 2. And I still like Paladins ... for reasons that have nothing to do with game mechanics. And IMO why I choose to like paladins is every bit as valid a reason for doing so as some game mechanics reason. I prefer games like this for the role playing. I'm not looking to create a party of min-maxed OP characters and have no intention of judging any class from that perspective.

 

This is the class builds sub forum and the topic discusses a class balance issue.

 

Sir, you are making a strong point, but RP reasons have nothing to offer to the discussion.