Why Paladin's RULE

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

Actually, I think I derive more of my view on "What makes a Paladin?" from Sierra's Quest for Glory series than from AD&D, D&D, or Baldur's Gate.
Did anybody else play these games? I loved them all, with the possible exception of #5. Anyway, anybody could become a Paladin in Quest For Glory, though it was harder for the mage and the thief to do so. You just had to do was right. Sure, 'right' and 'wrong' were determined by a somewhat ethnocentric point of view, but that was cool.
Heheh, I've strayed, and I'm not even sure I had a point to begin with.

Ah well. Paladins rule! Down with evil!

ReignsOfPower · Post by **ReignsOfPower** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 8:23 pm

Hmmm, all this Discussion has inspired me to load up my old Cavailer save file.

Cavailer vs Undead Hunter...hmmmmmmmmmmm

Interesting......

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 8:34 pm

Not really on topic, but a great series was named.

Let's have a moment of silence for Quest For Glory. Truly one of the best series for the computor has died, and will not be forgotten.

Now. For Paladins. I agree with the statements of Paladins being more of a support character, ebcause they are. They are opting for the best of both worlds, and attain that with good skill. And about the tanking issue, if you want a tank, a barbarian with anything powerful on him is a tank, don't even try to tank a paladin, cause it doesn't work. Personnally, I go with the whole Wizard Slayer Kit (If you want to know why, look back a few dozen pages, and read Idiots Vs. Brainers, My little gem) Because the only real threat in BG2 is the mages. well, my 2 cents, and I want a refund on that.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 2:50 am

My Cavalier is my tank, without Carsomyr.

With a shield and a good long sword he can take the damage and deal it out (weapon mastery is a poor trade for being specialised with multiple weapons). A cleric isn't needed with the back up spells and regeneration items - Jaheirha is all the high level cleric/druid spells you need. When everyone is spooked b/c of a horror spell, his "remove fear" brings them back. Innate resistances mean that with a single fire item and and the paladin/cleric spell "protection from fire" I can toss fireballs into melee and don't have to worry about collatoral damage.
He is first in line when facing dragons and demons - of which there are quite a few in SoA and ToB.

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 11:00 am

This thread gets more interesting every day

Originally posted by Magus:
A kensai/mage just really isn't possible, from a roleplaying perspective.

Suppose the Kensai's true love was slain by demons and for all his swordsmanship he was powerless. He then takes up magery to prevent the same happening to others.

Suppose the Kensai likes being both a sword saint and a mage and did good career planning. Humans cannot multiclass, so if you like both worlds, there isn't any other way.

Suppose the Kensai "falls out of love" with his sword. He gets bored of the hack and slash and wants to try something new and fascinating that will never fail to enthrall him for the rest of his life.

Suppose the Kensai is ambitious and realizes he can attain his ultimate dream of sword mastery only with magic (Tenser's Transformation and Improved Haste) at his side.

All valid "roleplaying" backgrounds, I think.

Originally posted by Orland:
You want a tank, be a fighter.

I fail to see why Fighters would be so amazingly more suited for tanking. The only advantage (in BG2 terms) a vanilla Fighter has over a vanilla Paladin is Grand Mastery. The differences with Specialization are minor. Look at what the Paladin gets in return; some of his spells make him twice the tank he already is. The Kits are slightly trickier to compare.

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.

Inquisitor abilities vs. Cleric spells:
[*]Instant casting speed vs. medium casting time.
[*]Dispel at a much higher level, practically guaranteeing success.
Dispel Magic is a level 3 spell. Clerics have several other good level 3 choices, Mages have loads.
True Sight is a level 6 spell. Both Clerics and Mages have loads of powerful alternatives for slots they don't have to fill with True Sight.

The Inquisitor may not get quantity, but he sure makes up in quality.

Originally posted by Aegis:
Let's have a moment of silence for Quest For Glory. Truly one of the best series for the computor has died, and will not be forgotten.

[...]

sigurd · Post by **sigurd** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 12:18 pm

Just got to add that all of your reasons for the Kensai to dual to a mage really sucked, Xyx. The whole point being a kensai is to master close combat fighting only, which makes your last 3 arguments go away instantly, and what makes a mage better at fighting a demon than the kensai? one on one a kensai would kill the demon fast.

Now im sure you can make up many new events, and please do so if it makes you feel less a powergamer.
If you think its good for roleplaying, so fine, but then i wouldnt believe you if you said you werent a powergamer, only a roleplayer.
I never said it be wrong playing one, just that it is more powergaming than roleplaying.

Yeah, an inquisitor wielding the carsomyr makes a mage die fast indeed, unless the mage gets to strike first. also, all the inquisitor spells can be turned back against your own mages. ( i might be wrong here...)

Zartuul · Post by **Zartuul** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 1:47 pm

Ok I strongly disagree with people saying that paladins can't dish out the damage or tank in this game. I will explain why neither of the above are true.

Paladins can dish out the damage nearly as well as a fighter. Thaco caps at lvl 20 which means fighters and paladins will have the same thaco. The only difference is 5* vs 2* in proficiency. That amounts to +2/+3 vs +1/+2, not that big of a difference. The other major difference is that fighters will get more special ToB abilities then Paladins because they cap 6 levels higher. However my Paladin has about 4 or 5 whirlwind skill, 2 hardiness, more then enough skills to use before I have to rest again.

Paladin's make among the BEST tanks out there. Why? Armor of Faith, it rocks. Fighters don't have anything like it. The lvl 2 spell Draw upon Holy Might is another spell seemingly designed for Paladins. Can't go wrong with +3 to str, dex, and con.

I made a power gamer party and I compared the combat abilities of my end game SoA paladin and barbarian (haven't taken this power gamer party into ToB yet). The paladin could easily solo the Black Dragon in Suldanesselar because of his Armor of Faith spells, Draw upon Holy Might, protection from evil, and most importantly Carsomyr. Carsomyr dispelled Thax's stone skins and his haste, that made a HUGE difference in the fight. When my Barbarian fought Thax he had to fight his way through the Stone skins and a hasted dragon. He won after a few reloads and when he did it was just barely. He also has 50 more hps then my Paladin.

In ToB Paladins can also summon Devas. Why is this good? Because unlike Priests its a special ability and NOT a spell that will take up a lvl 7 spell slot. My cleric has summon deva as a skill but never uses because it takes up a precious spell slot. Devas are pretty good allies, a Paladin and his Deva could outperform just about any fighter type.

Andrew Shih · Post by **Andrew Shih** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 7:28 pm

In BG II paladins were excellent, but in TOB they suck and are clearly inferior. Here's why....

1. Base THACO caps at 0 and so from level 17 to level 40 it improves a grand total of only 3 points!
2. Paladins got up to level 4 cleric spells in BG II--they're still stuck with up to level 4 cleric spells in TOB, they just get more of them, but level 4 and under cleric spells are practically useless, especially since their spellcasting level does not go over 9 which they already had in BG II.
3. They get relatively few advanced ability points and they get them relatively slowly.
4. The fact that thieves and bards can "use any item" including the Carsomyr and plate tends to cheapen the paladin.
5. The dwarven fighter/cleric for example is superior in every respect, with the same base THACO but up to level 7/quest spells and a lot more spells and even more advanced ability points to put into fighting moves.
6. Immunities/Resistances aren't as important in TOB given that just about any advanced level character with a few magical items will have zero saving throws.

--Riverwind

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 8:40 pm

Originally posted by Riverwind:
In BG II paladins were excellent, but in TOB they suck and are clearly inferior. Here's why....

1. Base THACO caps at 0 and so from level 17 to level 40 it improves a grand total of only 3 points!
2. Paladins got up to level 4 cleric spells in BG II--they're still stuck with up to level 4 cleric spells in TOB, they just get more of them, but level 4 and under cleric spells are practically useless, especially since their spellcasting level does not go over 9 which they already had in BG II.
3. They get relatively few advanced ability points and they get them relatively slowly.
4. The fact that thieves and bards can "use any item" including the Carsomyr and plate tends to cheapen the paladin.
5. The dwarven fighter/cleric for example is superior in every respect, with the same base THACO but up to level 7/quest spells and a lot more spells and even more advanced ability points to put into fighting moves.
6. Immunities/Resistances aren't as important in TOB given that just about any advanced level character with a few magical items will have zero saving throws.

--Riverwind

So they suck because they are inferior in the sense, you can't powergame them. Right??

So if I decide to play the part of a Paladin, IYO I will suck. I will be barely able to beat the game because they are that inferior. If they are that bad I wonder why the makers of the game left them in.

Thanks for your opinion.

R.Carter · Post by **R.Carter** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 8:47 pm

Back in the day, we had a healthy respect for Paladins who were wielding Holy Avengers. In the P&P environment, we measured the relative strength of our magic weapons against Avengers and Vorpal Blades. Kind of tough to beat a +6 (or +5 even) whacker that imparts a 50% MR, Dispels Magic on a succesful hit, has a damage increase v. really evil critters, and so on. So what if its a two-hander? Small price to pay. As far as the Fig being able to level up higher than a Paladin ans thus being somehow "better", a lev 40 Paladin would just be too ugly to consider.

I am not trying to say that any one class or weapon is better than any other class or weapon, that is strictly a matter of taste and opinion. I am just saying that in a game as huge as the BG series (not to mention the P&P game), there are so many possibilities it just seems kind of silly to dis a whole class, or even one of the games great benchmark magic items. But hey, everybody is entitled to their opinion...
R.Carter

Orland · Post by **Orland** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 10:52 pm

Alright, time to get medevil...in a holy sort of way.

First off:

@Xyx
*********************
This all depends on your idea of a "tank". In EQ terms a tank is someone who absorbs alot of damage, which is more akin to a punching bag, than a tank. A tank is a vehicle that offers decent protection while offering massive firepower. A Fighter in BG is more akin to the literal tank as they do have decent ac, but ungodly attack power at their disposal. Sure, I'll admit that a pally can take a hit, it's usually what they have to do. But a Fighter can unleash a truckload of hurt alot better. This was more prevailant in Icewind Dale than in BG2 (grand mastery nerf does take some wind out of a fighter), but still a fighter in BG2 can smash a pally in armed combat, holy sword or no.
*********************

Now, let me shatter one illusion about Carsomyr being a model for a Holy Avenger. Because while it is in BG1-ToB, the next Black Isle D&D game that is in 3rd Edition rules, it will not be.

Here is the definition for a Holy Avenger from the 3rd Edition Dungeon Master's Guide (for those who question it's found on page 188)

Holy Avenger: In the hands of any other character other than a paladin, this sword performs only as a +2 longsword. In the hands of a paladin however this Holy Avenger becomes a +5 Longsword (+1d6 in damage against evil creatures), creates a spell resistance of 15 in a 5 foot radius, and cast dispel magic (usuable every round as a standard action) in a 5 foot radius at the class level of the paladin. (only the area disel is possible, not the targeted dispel or the counter-spell versions of dispel magic).

So, what does this have to do with BG2? Simply put, if you based your character around Carsomyr and plan on bringing them into NWN, you're prolly going to get a rude awakening. Which brings me to Reign's first reason that people choose a paladin.

Carsomyr being a strength.

True, but in the long run, it could be a curse.

Orland

M_J · Post by **M_J** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:29 am

I agree completely with orland!!!

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:53 am

I don't. You all suck large plums.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. Acording to that old addage, there is certainly no shortage of arseholes here.

Weasel is right. So what if, in your opinion, Paladins suck/Carsomyr is naff/NWN will chew up paladins? I'll play a paladin if I want to and have fun despite peoples pathetic attempts to discredit them.

And maybe I'll see your scumbag rogue or mage in NWN and ram my 2-handed sword right down your gullet.

Orland · Post by **Orland** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 5:43 am

Okay...I think...

@Gruntboy
*****************
Alright, first off, I play a paladin, it's all I play, because I like the role. I am not discrediting paladins, but I am trying to point out that the idea of someone narrow-mindingly basing their character around one weapon, is absurd. I'd say impossible, but someone would prove me wrong just for spite

*****************

Really though, no class truely dominates another. Only the tact used in playing your character is the superior aspects shown.

Remember, a sword is just as deadly as a well placed spell, or a hidden dagger in the shadows. The only true mastery is the one that acknowledges these things, and prepares for them.

Orland

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 5:49 am

Really though, no class truely dominates another. Only the tact used in playing your character is the superior aspects shown.

Remember, a sword is just as deadly as a well placed spell, or a hidden dagger in the shadows. The only true mastery is the one that acknowledges these things, and prepares for them.

This makes more sense.

I can't abide people who pop up and say "paladins rule" or Sorcerers are the best class". If this were the case, since we all possess a modicum of intelligence in being able to play this game in the first instance, we'd already know this and be using nothing but the specified character.

Of course it boils down to how well an individual plays his chosen character.

Although I see little difference in a solo fighter who whacks his way through with a solo mage who spells or a thief who sneaks/backstabs or a jester who confuses etc. Surely that is the point of character specialistaion and a party combination?

Roll on BG Deathmatch.

Metatron · Post by **Metatron** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 9:27 am

Originally posted by Orland:
Now, let me shatter one illusion about Carsomyr being a model for a Holy Avenger. Because while it is in BG1-ToB, the next Black Isle D&D game that is in 3rd Edition rules, it will not be.

Here is the definition for a Holy Avenger from the 3rd Edition Dungeon Master's Guide (for those who question it's found on page 188)

Holy Avenger: In the hands of any other character other than a paladin, this sword performs only as a +2 longsword. In the hands of a paladin however this Holy Avenger becomes a +5 Longsword (+1d6 in damage against evil creatures), creates a spell resistance of 15 in a 5 foot radius, and cast dispel magic (usuable every round as a standard action) in a 5 foot radius at the class level of the paladin. (only the area disel is possible, not the targeted dispel or the counter-spell versions of dispel magic).

So, what does this have to do with BG2? Simply put, if you based your character around Carsomyr and plan on bringing them into NWN, you're prolly going to get a rude awakening. Which brings me to Reign's first reason that people choose a paladin.

In BG2 and ToB, there are three Holy Avengers, and none of them are 'typical' weapons. This is because Holy Avengers don't come from a factory where they are assembled in mass quantities. If you think the switch from AD&D rules to D&D rules will suddenly make Carsomyr any less atypical of a magical weapon, you should think again. The Holy Avengers in AD&D and D&D aren't even really that different, to be honest.

Of course, my paladin is done adventuring. I'm starting fresh with NWN.

Metatron · Post by **Metatron** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 9:29 am

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
I can't abide people who pop up and say "paladins rule" or Sorcerers are the best class". If this were the case, since we all possess a modicum of intelligence in being able to play this game in the first instance, we'd already know this and be using nothing but the specified character.

Actually, I believe it's been fairly well established that the Kensai/Mage is one of the objectively 'best' classes out there. Yet when I tried it, I got bored after about 15 minutes. This is because that combination meant nothing to me, and so I couldn't play it.

Red Inquisition · Post by **Red Inquisition** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 9:46 am

Just because a certain class is not as good as another does not make them a bad class to play. I am soloing a beastmaster, which is arguably the worst class, and I love to play with him. It presents an challange to beat anything. I also have an Undead Hunter, which is a great class, but he is not as fun because of his special abilities and immunies make the game a lot less challanging.

Doltan · Post by **Doltan** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:20 am

I thoroughly enjoyed HighLordDave's post (sending the Palladin out for beer, limitations to role playing on a computer, etc.). It was a great post. I wanted to object to one point, however:

Originally posted by HighLordDave:

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.

I think that in a perfect role-playing world, there would be a huge range of effectiveness for the classes. Why should each class be equal in their usefullness as adventurers? Why should a person, being the best bard they can be, be as effective at defeating a red dragon as an equally experienced fighter (notice that I wrote "defeating" and not "fighting" or "killing"). Maybe you need to define balance better, but I can't see how the fact that a kensai/mage is more powerful in BGII makes the game somehow unlike the real world or less of a realistic role playing experience.

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 11:27 am

Since we can't seem to agree whether paladins suck or not,
All classes suck. No class is better than anybody else. Happy now. Now go off and play your game children.