Why Paladin's RULE

ReignsOfPower · Post by **ReignsOfPower** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 5:33 am

Why do people choose a Paladin?
1. The Carsomyr (I don't know any Paladin who does not wield it)
2. Cleric spells.

Ok, thats a fair combination but here is why they really arn't that good.

1. Carsomyr - People use for Tanking their Paladin. Well, quite frankly, a Paladin only leaches Level 31, whereas a Fighter reaches level 40. Therefore a Paladin can't tank as good as a Fighter, or even a Monk.

2. Cleric spells - +Turn Undead. Well, Cleric spells only hit level 6 (which is quite good, but not best) and turn Undead Level is only level 31. A Cleric by far surpasses a Paladin in this aspect.

Ok so thats my arguments aginst it.

Other than the 'for' arguments I posted at the top, what else is a Paladin good for? There are many good 6+ weapons out there, some perhaps IMO better then the Carsomyr.

E.G.
A Fighter and Cleric vs. 2 Paladins. The Fighter and Cleric would win my a long shot (with no strategy, the 2 paladin with a really good strategy could possibly win, but not as easily)

A Paladin is much like a Multi Classed character, not being able to hit the Peak of a class.

[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: ReignsOfPower ]

Alterailty · Post by **Alterailty** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 6:23 am

not many ppl actually choose the paladin. don't most of you use kits. I personal find inquistor very good. also most ppl don't consider all the for and aginst palaidins. most ppl have a psychologh such as, played mage or fighter last time hhmmm the despriction on pal look good. look it is a fighter for good cool. a flow of consiousness loke that. then they hear about that +5 paladin sord from the red dragon and so they decid to play it.

Alterailty · Post by **Alterailty** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 6:26 am

sorry aout spelling errors

loke/like
sord/sword

sigurd · Post by **sigurd** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 7:09 am

The kits do not suck at all, and even though i do not like paladins other people do.
It is a question of roleplaying, roleplaying a paladin can be fun.

For you powergamers, go with your Kensai/mage class that makes no sense whatsoever in roleplaying, but is SO strong.
All people wont choose the strongest class just because it is strongest.

koz-ivan · Post by **koz-ivan** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 7:14 am

why paladins do not suck:

roleplay aspect, it's kinda neat to be this goody two shoes on the outside when your really the son of the murder god on the inside. (by helm! the conflicts)

with the "nerfed" grandmastery paladins are if not the equal of a ftr they are close in terms of melee ability. (depending on kit + opponent the paladin may be better) some paladins also have the option to cast cleric spells in combat.

1. carsomyr, you don't have to use this sword! actually i don't use it much as i prefer the "look" of sword & shield. (the -5 to ac is a nice bonus) usually use daystar, the drinker, dragon slayer sword or equalizer. heck you can even have a dual wield paladin if you wish.

2. cleric spells / special abilities, they are nice to have when you need them. there are some really powerful low level cleric spells, armour of faith, doom, entangle, holy might, ect. and of course keldorn's truesight & dispel magic.

ftr + cleric vs 2 paladins?
if you are trying to compare the ability of a ftr with that of a paladin why add the cleric? (hell you don't even need a cleric to beat tob, jaheria was my only healer)

back to keldorn:
his dispel magic, can free up mage slots for skull trap, fireball & flame arrow.
cleric slots for animate dead.
true sight free's up 6th level mage spells & 5th (iirc) cleric spells that's quite a bit of spell power for the party that chooses to take the crappy knight. and he casts them quicker and more effectively.
-- edit --
actually Reigns of Power, if paladins suck sooo bad why do you still have keldorn in your party?

[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: koz-ivan ]

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 7:21 am

Originally posted by ReignsOfPower:
Why do people choose a Paladin?
1. The Carsomyr (I don't know any Paladin who does not wield it)
2. Cleric spells.

It's a Role Playing game. You choose your ROLE. As for (1.) I never used Carsomyr, never had a need to. (2.)The cleric spells for a Paladin are really lacking, so I really don't see this being a factor.

Let's try something....

Why Cleric's SUCK...(Yes you read it Right)

1.Can't use swords.

Why Mage's SUCK...(Yes you read it Right)

1.Low hit points.

Why Ranger's SUCK...(Yes you read it Right)

1.Can only be Human or Half Elf.

I do believe you could pick any class and pick it apart. It depends on how you decide to play your game...'hack and slash' or 'role play'. IMO

[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: Weasel ]

EPKJ · Post by **EPKJ** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 7:24 am

"1. Carsomyr - People use for Tanking their Paladin. Well, quite frankly, a Paladin only leaches Level 31, whereas a Fighter reaches level 40. Therefore a Paladin
can't tank as good as a Fighter, or even a Monk."

Actually, Paladins can reach Level 34, not Level 31. Also, a far better criticism of Carsomyr is that it is a Two-Handed Sword. It does not allow the use of a shield. This is not ideal for a "tank" character, as it prevents a superior armor class. With magic shields, this can deprive a character of as much as 4 points of armor class protection.

"2. Cleric spells - +Turn Undead. Well, Cleric spells only hit level 6 (which is quite good, but not best) and turn Undead Level is only level 31. A Cleric by far
surpasses a Paladin in this aspect."

This is a ridiculous argument. Of course a Cleric is a better Cleric than a Paladin! Duh! The point is that the Cleric spells augment the Paladin's fighting ability. Further, as a Paladin can actually reach Level 34, so can his ability to Turn Undead.

I agree that Paladins are lacking. There is no reason that they should be limited so severely in weapon skill. Also, they have a horrible stronghold.

Metatron · Post by **Metatron** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 8:07 am

So, basically Paladins suck because you say they suck, eh Reigns?

Guess what, I played a Paladin in BG1, when there was no Carsomyr and you couldn't get a high enough level to cast cleric spells! Why, you ask? Because I don't view characters in terms of how well they can "tank." I view them in terms of the opportunities they will offer me as the player of a game with an involving storyline.

Edit: But just to be snippy, I would put my LONE paladin protagonist up against your Fighter and Cleric team any day of the week.

[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: Metatron ]

Savarius · Post by **Savarius** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 8:17 am

As I and my friends always said while playing D&D, each class has it's advantages and disadvantages, it's all how you play. As has been said above, I don't think the purpose of any of the BG games is to create the "best tank". If I really wanted a tank, I'd be playing Diablo 2.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 12:44 pm

If you go for the undead hunter kit you are immune to hold and level drain. Quite handy if you consider all the undead in this game.... IMHO, this alone is a good argument to create a paladin pc.

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 3:47 pm

Originally posted by ReignsOfPower:
Cleric spells only hit level 6

And that is supposed to be a disadvantage? We're talking about a tank that can cast level 6 spells...

Originally posted by sigurd:
For you powergamers, go with your Kensai/mage class that makes no sense whatsoever in roleplaying, but is SO strong.

I fail to see what makes no sense in a reasonably intelligent adventurer wanting to maximize his potential for survival... Flesh and blood people would rather do something as tasteless as "going against their nature" than die on the battlefield.

Originally posted by Metatron:
just to be snippy, I would put my LONE paladin protagonist up against your Fighter and Cleric team any day of the week.

Purely out of benign curiosity, might I ask for the reason behind this self confidence?

Originally posted by Savarius:
each class has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Unfortunately, some have more than others. In a perfect world, all classes would be balanced.

sigurd · Post by **sigurd** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:01 pm

A kensai devotes his life to fighting, ignoring magic totally, while a magic is qite the opposite, like night and day, black and white, whatever. A regular fighter dualled would make some sense, but a kensai just sounds wierd to me

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 6:42 pm

It is one of the inherent weaknesses of the computer aspect of the Infinity engine that makes the classes unbalanced. In a PnP campaign, people play paladins (or assassins for that matter) for the role playing aspect. The computer, with pre-set dialogue trees and a finite number of outcomes makes BG2 a roll playing game.

Don't get me wrong; I can't stand paladins, never could. There were the guys we always had to send to the store for beer while the rest of us "interrogated" prisoners, and who wouldn't let us gouge poor villagers out of their meager life savings for ridding their town of nogoodniks or doing some such service ("Charity," they called it, yeach!).

If anything, BG2 is biased against thieves and bards because they don't fight particularly well and they don't have access to powerful magic items or spells. Hell, once I got rid of Yoshimo I never needed a thief because my clerics and rangers had the Find Traps spell and my fighters had enough HP we could afford to spring the traps Imoen couldn't disarm. Nevertheless, the rogue classes are some of the most fun to play when it's you and a bunch of buddies staying up until 4 a.m. subsisting on penicillin-laden pizza, cold nachos, and beer. Plus, you'll find people on these very boards who wouldn't trade in their bard for a fighter, half the gold in Waterdeep, and a set of Christmas lights.

In a stand-up one-on-one fight, the best character is a barbarian, if for no other reason than the d12 HP. But not all fights are that straight forward. Plus, to quote a wise old man, "There are alternatives to fighting."

Unfortunately, the BG2 story can almost always be advanced by beating the crap out of someone. That is the single glaring weakness of the computer-RPG format. In a PnP campaign, my players never got away with using brute force alone. They had to role-play. If they didn't, they either got their butts kicked by someone bigger/stronger/faster or they found a way to trick/negotiate/buy/solve their way out of a problem. They became better players and I became a better GM because I never let them muscle their way through a situation without making them accountable for their conduct.

You claim that a fighter and a cleric can take out 2 paladins of equal experience, right? Well, take your fighter and cleric an put them in a room with my two thieves and I'll bet that you kick my butt. Put your fighter and cleric in a maze with my thief and magic-user and we'll chew you to pieces. Part of it's strategy, part of it's terrain, part of it's the goodies you have, part of it's brute force, and part of it's blind luck, and remember that not everyone has all of the parts.

Our friend Xyx says, "In a perfect world, all classes would be balanced" which is one of the most intelligent (and true) things I've heard all day.

Magus · Post by **Magus** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 6:54 pm

I'm a powergamer in many respects, but I have to agree with sigurd. A kensai/mage just really isn't possible, from a roleplaying perspective. You can't totally ignore magic for part of your life and then suddenly pick it up and become a decent mage. That's not how it works. Vice versa, you can't focus most of your life on magic, and then turn away from it completely and expect your mage skills not to dwindle.
But that's just my opinion...

ReignsOfPower · Post by **ReignsOfPower** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 7:03 pm

QUTOE

So Paladins suck because you say they suck eh Reigns?

No actually I don't think they suck at all. I think they are a very well balanced class indeed (and also Role Play very nicely). I deliberately Named the topic this so to catch the readers attention.

Oh, and all my arguments are IMO. So it doesn't mean they suck totally because I expressed what I was feeling at the time.

About the dual v 2 Paladins and A fighter + Cleric.
The Cleric fighter have a major advantage over the 2 Paladins. Especially if the Cleric is evil, and so the Fighter.
Evil Clerics can Turn Paladin (very cool) and Evil Fighters can use the Soul Reaver (I happen to love this sword

)

A Paladin without the Carsomyr? Why?!? It's a blardy good sword. So you guys don't use the Carsomyr because you wan't the AC bounous of a Shield eh? Good point.

Anyways, thats it for now.

Laterz.

Mr. Sprinkles · Post by **Mr. Sprinkles** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 7:08 pm

I think the Paladin is pretty lackluster as well (not the kits, those are good). My favorite would also have to be the Inquisitor; team one of these up with an Archer and mages will fear you.

Orland · Post by **Orland** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 7:14 pm

So Paladins suck?

Considering all I play is paladins, and I don't use Mr. Uber Carsomyr on my Protagonist Paladin, I disagree.

Yep, I don't play with Carsomyr, I'm a one hand weapon man, who prefers bastard swords and long swords. I love the classic sword and shield fighting, and while most opt for AC in shield choosing, I love the shield of harmony, it's abilities make fighting mages easy.

Next, I didn't choose a paladin for spells or the flashy weapon, I choose to be a paladin, because it fit the story of the game in my opinion. I like the idea of being a beacon of virtue that was spawned from a source of evil.

If you want the sword, it's your choice. If you want the spells, go be a cleric, sheesh.

Now, as far as what a Paladin is good for, I'll answer that question. But before I do let's get one thing straight.

A Paladin is NOT A TANK.

You want a tank, be a fighter. A Paladin is a support character. You support the fighter when he's taken on too much, and you support the cleric when that extra spell is needed or the combat is drawn towards the cleric. It is a paladin's role to support the group he/she is in and make sure that one of the 2 areas above is not lacking.

This is what a paladin is and it is a very good "for" arguement.

Kits paladins can become is another good reason, but I do not use kits as I like the basic paladin more than the kits (though that undead hunter resistance to level drain is really handy early on in the game).

As for making Carsomyr +6, it's up to the player. I use the Purifier, it's at +5, I keep Carsomyr in my pack as a trophy. Yes, there are better weapons, but there again, that's a fighter's field.

As for your matching in a battle, I think not. Both sides would be very well matched, strategy or no. Reason?

It's not what you play, it's how you play it.

Orland

[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: Orland ]

ReignsOfPower · Post by **ReignsOfPower** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 7:51 pm

I agree.
Paladins are a VERY good support people.

Many people who play BG2 at my school thin that Inquisitors are crap because they don't have Cleric spells.

I rubutt to this argument that the are a Mages worst enemy.

Then they attack back at me saying that Cleric spells include all the Inquisitors Innate abilities anyway, so their not as good.

What do you guys think?

B.T.W.
Is an Archer good? Does Missle damage increase as he goes up in levels? I had Serevok with one * in Long bows and Greater Whirlwind attack on. It was unreal! EVERY missle hit my main guy who has -16 AC against Missle weapons! You gotta love it!

[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: ReignsOfPower ]

Mr. Clark · Post by **Mr. Clark** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 7:58 pm

I also happen to think that an Inquisitor is a very good character. But I have a question: If a Paladin can't cast spells, can't turn undead, and can't lay on hands, is the Paladin still a Paladin????

Even though the above question was a joke, it still presents a viable argument.

BTW Undead Hunters are the COOLEST Paladins (theres just something about a Paladin named Simon Belmont)

Red Inquisition · Post by **Red Inquisition** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 8:10 pm

Originally posted by ReignsOfPower:

Then they attack back at me saying that Cleric spells include all the Inquisitors Innate abilities anyway, so their not as good.

But the Inquisitor dispel ability is done at twice his level and the cleric spell is not. This makes the Inquisitors Dispell ability much bettter.