Paladin (and Antipaladin?) is non-Key for all roles?

[HappyDaze]

It seems odd to me that Paladin levels are never considered Key for advancing monsters. Particularly since even 1 level of Paladin grants better ability scores, something that 1 level of Warrior does not.

This came up when building a Jackalwere villain. With 3 racial HD and CR 2, I was looking at adding 2 levels of Ranger which would increase it to CR 4. I also noted that i could instead opt for 3 levels of Antipaladin for the same CR (the first 2 add only +1 DR since they are non-Key, while the third is also +1 since it equals the original HD number). I'm wondering if this is right since it's also the same CR as what a Jackalwere Warrior 3 would be.

Since my players seem to do a bit of min-maxing, perhaps the monsters should be able to as well?

[wraithstrike]

I thought the key roles were based on magic users, skilled characters, or combat(damage dealers). If so the paladin falls into the damage dealer.

[HappyDaze]

wraithstrike wrote:

I thought the key roles were based on magic users, skilled characters, or combat(damage dealers). If so the paladin falls into the damage dealer.

Paladin and Monk are listed as "-" for all roles (Combat, Spell, Skill, and Special) per Table 2-4, Bestiary page 297.

[Are]

IMO, the Paladin should be part of the Combat role, and I run it as such. For a melee-based monster, Paladin/Anti-Paladin levels are just as good or better than Fighter levels.

[blackbloodtroll]

If you are doing a unique character for your campaign, cool. If you are in an arms race with your PCs, there is something very wrong there.

[HappyDaze]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

If you are doing a unique character for your campaign, cool. If you are in an arms race with your PCs, there is something very wrong there.

Not so much of an arms race, but the PCs are very powerful (not a bad thing in itself), so I don't really feel to bad giving the opposition a bit more bang for the buck. Optimizing the monsters to the same degree as the players is a lot of work, but some basic optimization of the monsters isn't a bad thing either. One added level of Antipaladin shouldn't break the encounter - the extra hit points might just be enough to let him last another round...

[blackbloodtroll]

Encounter not tough enough? Add another monster, or make the terrain a disadvantage to the PCs. Way more easy.

[Knight Magenta]

Lets do a comparison:

Ranger 2 gives:
1 bonus feat
favoured enemy (since you know the PCs, this is basically a flat +2)

Paladin 3 gives:
+1 BaB over the ranger
smite
lay on hands
fear / disease immunity
+(5 + con) hp over the ranger

However, smite and lay on hands key off of charisma. If your baddie has a natural cha bonus is 0, then with the +4 to cha for taking a PC class and the point of BaB you get over the ranger you get a total of +3 to hit, +3 damage and +3 AC against 1 PC during the combat. You also get +4d6 + 5 + con hitpoints.

Compare to the ranger: He does not need to spend a valuable +4 on Cha, so he can put it to Con or Dex instead. The favoured enemy will effect most of the party. The combat feat can give him an extra attack. The only place the paladin wins is with health, even there its not so much since the ranger has about double the damage output.

I think the ranger is scarier :) Things change if your npc has a solid charisma to start with, then the paladin gets more attractive