I am curious as to how you guys and gals would handle a 5th level Paladin who, as a servant of Erastil, would handle a ranged weapon focus. 20 point buy.
Everything else is up to you.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I am curious as to how you guys and gals would handle a 5th level Paladin who, as a servant of Erastil, would handle a ranged weapon focus. 20 point buy.
Everything else is up to you.
Spread the wealth stat-wise, since paladins are pretty MAD, start with base 15 in DEX, +2 for race (halfling, half-orc, half-elf, human, or elf), +1 stat bump at 4th, so 18 DEX.
BAB +5, DEX +4, +1 bow = +10 to hit (+11 if you go halfling)
For feats, probably go pretty straightforward: PB Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and count on your smite evil to offset your Rapid Shot penalties. If you went human, I'd probably add Deadly Aim for the same reason.
Need accuracy, take one shot at par. Vs. bad AC opponent, take two shots at -4 to hit, +4 damage.
Gives you good versatility depending on how tough to hit your opponent is, which is often a big swing at low levels between low-grade mooks and animals and vermin at the low AC end and the odd magical beast or tough NPC at the higher end.
Probably go divine bond (weapon) - a lot of good options there.
Were you looking for something generic like this, or a statted up char?
In sum: I might go halfling, actually. You could offset your damage penalty with Deadly Aim (replace Rapid Shot); you essentially get -1 damage (1d6 instead of 1d8 with small longbow) but you get +1 size bonus to hit; translate that with Deadly Aim, and you are essentially taking a -1 penalty to hit to get +3 damage, vs. a medium character taking -2 to get +4.
Just a notion.
Old fashioned maybe but I was under the impression Paladins were supposed to be honorable warriors who focused on melee combat? Certainly the rules do not require it but would most not agree that a classic paladin archetype almost disdains ranged combat? The idea being that you don't attack your opponent from afar? Doing so would be dishonorable? What happened to honor amongst paladins and knights?
I don't get it I guess. There used to be a time when being a paladin meant you were an honorable melee combatant, likely in heavy armor, likely with a heavy war horse. You fought your opponent in personal combat, not with bows and arrows from a distance, staying out of his reach like a coward.
sigh.
Spread the wealth stat-wise, since paladins are pretty MAD, start with base 15 in DEX, +2 for race (halfling, half-orc, half-elf, human, or elf), +1 stat bump at 4th, so 18 DEX.
JN sums it up pretty well, although I can add this. My wife runs a very successful bow paladin in our 3E Planescape game. in order to get the DEX. higher, she ditched a -1 mod. into CON. This has worked out well in the long run (started at 1st, now at 19th level). Being a ranged combatant means she doesn't need as many HP, and the numerous ways a paladin can heal have all added up to make up for the slightly reduced HP. Plus she has never noticed the one-point-lower FORT. save, thanks to divine grace.
Food for thought!
Peace,
tfad
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Spread the wealth stat-wise, since paladins are pretty MAD, start with base 15 in DEX, +2 for race (halfling, half-orc, half-elf, human, or elf), +1 stat bump at 4th, so 18 DEX.JN sums it up pretty well, although I can add this. My wife runs a very successful bow paladin in our 3E Planescape game. in order to get the DEX. higher, she ditched a -1 mod. into CON. This has worked out well in the long run (started at 1st, now at 19th level). Being a ranged combatant means she doesn't need as many HP, and the numerous ways a paladin can heal have all added up to make up for the slightly reduced HP. Plus she has never noticed the one-point-lower FORT. save, thanks to divine grace.
Food for thought!
Peace,
tfad
That's actually a sneaky-good point that is magnified from 3rd Ed to PF, because of the paladin's ability to use lay on hands on herself as a swift action, effectively extending their hp as long as they don't get hit with one giant mega-blast.
Paladin Archers are rather effective combatants. They have incredible defenses. A paladin vs. evil opponents is better then a ranger vs. their favored enemy. Vs. a dragon/outsider they out do them entirely.
Dex, Cha, and Str will be your main stats to focus on.
Old fashioned maybe but I was under the impression Paladins were supposed to be honorable warriors who focused on melee combat?
I was inspired by the Erastil paladin who use smite evil with ranged weapons
I don't think there's a huge problem with a bow armed Paladin. You could argue that several manga/anime characters (Kikyo and Kagome from Inuyasha being recent examples) are actually Paladins.
Were you looking for something generic like this, or a statted up char?
generic or statted up is fine. thanks for the input
Name: ???
Race: Halfling
Age: ??
Alignment: LG
Class: Paladin 5
HP: ?
STR: 12 (+1) (14 base - 2 race)
DEX: 18 (+4) (15 base +2 race +1 level)
CON: 12 (+1)
INT: 10 (+0)
WIS: 8 (-1)
CHA: 18 (+4) (16 base + 2 race)
Fort: +10
Ref: +10
Will: +8
BAB: +5
AC: 22, 10+ (10 armor) + (1 Dex) + (1 size)
AC 26 vs. Smite Evil target
CMB: +6
CMD: 20
Skills;
+9 Diplomacy
+9 Ride
Attacks;
+12 composite longbow 1d6+2
(+5 BAB, +4 Dex, +1 size, +1 Point Blank Shot +1 bow)
Full attack;
+10/+10
Smite Evil adds +4 to hit, and +5 to damage. +10 vs. outsiders, dragons, and undead.
Specials;
Aura of Good
Detect Evil
Smite Evil 2/day
Divine Grace
Lay on Hands 6/day +2d6
Aura of Courage
Divine Health
Mercy (???)
Channel Positive Energy
Divine Bond (Your choice)
Feats;
1 Point Blank Shot
3 Precise Shot
5 Rapid Shot
Equipment; WBL = 10,500 gp
+1 full plate
+1 composite long bow (+1)
whatever else to get you to the WBL
Roll up some HP, pick your Mercy, pick your choice Divine Bond.
A dog might be helpful for moving around. PowerWeapon 5000(tm) is fun but can't get you over a +10 modified enhancement bonus so can end up becoming not as useful.
The full attack is using Rapid Shot, at level 7 when you get Manyshot it will be something like.
+12/+12/+12/+7
Old fashioned maybe but I was under the impression Paladins were supposed to be honorable warriors who focused on melee combat? Certainly the rules do not require it but would most not agree that a classic paladin archetype almost disdains ranged combat? The idea being that you don't attack your opponent from afar? Doing so would be dishonorable? What happened to honor amongst paladins and knights?
I don't get it I guess. There used to be a time when being a paladin meant you were an honorable melee combatant, likely in heavy armor, likely with a heavy war horse. You fought your opponent in personal combat, not with bows and arrows from a distance, staying out of his reach like a coward.
sigh.
From www.dictionary.com
Paladin Spelled Pronunciation [pal-uh-din]Use paladin in a Sentence
See images of paladin
Search paladin on the Web
–noun 1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.
Nothing in here says they would choose melee over ranged. Of course, you are welcome to play a melee paladin, but there is no reason someone else can't have fun playing a ranged one.
From www.dictionary.com
Paladin Spelled Pronunciation [pal-uh-din]
Use paladin in a Sentence
See images of paladin
Search paladin on the Web
–noun 1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.Nothing in here says they would choose melee over ranged. Of course, you are welcome to play a melee paladin, but there is no reason someone else can't have fun playing a ranged one.
Ok then I want to make a paladin who uses poison and attacks people when they are prone or otherwise defenseless. I don't see anything specifically in the above that says I can't, so therefore, its cool.
Wait, honor says I can't take unfair advantage of an opponent.
Shooting an opponent with a bow who does not have or use a ranged weapon, is, in my perspective, taking advantage of an opponent. Using something to your advantage the opponent does not or can not also use. In my view, a paladin chooses to fight fairly, and ideally in personal melee combat whenever at all possible.
Certainly, if an opponent will not or can not fight honorably (if it is an animal, a construct, or an opponent who simply chooses not to fight fairly) then the paladin can use other options such as a bow or thrown weapon. In my view though, a ranged weapon should be a last resort weapon, used only in the cases where an opponent will not or can not face the paladin honorably.
AND, of course, anyone can play anything however they like. I was simply complaining that what people call paladins nowadays sure don't sound like paladins. Paladins, by their nature, follow a code of honor and that code USED to involve not taking advantage of an opponent... because that was considered unfair. Now though, you have all these people playing paladins who shoot bows at enemies and then run away from those enemies. What is that? And I even decline to accept that this is my old fogy syndrome showing through. This is simply a matter of the class no longer being what a paladin was originally supposed to be, which was the heavily armored martial combatant who fights with honor and chivalry in the name of a lawful good god. The follows a strict code of behavior that forbids him from acting dishonorably. I guess people just don't see paladins this way anymore.
sigh (again) lol
If you want to play someone who shoots arrows at an enemy, play a fighter, ranger, or some other class. A paladin fights with a sword and shield and brings death and dismemberment to evil. He brings fairness and justice along the way. Well, that's how paladins are in campaigns I run. If you don't want to play that, then in my campaigns you play something else. I guess I'm a real pita that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, honor says I can't take unfair advantage of an opponent.
You're thinking of the Knight, not the Paladin. Paladins have NEVER been forbidden from "taking advantage of an opponent". By your interpretation, Paladins have to fight on a perfectly level playing field, or one that's tilted to the opponent's favor. They can't flank enemies, they can't use tactics, they have to march straight forward into the maws of death. After all, attacking from the side is dishonorable.
Sorry, no, that's a load of dreck. Paladins cannot take evil acts, must not associate with the wrong people, and must maintain a Lawful Good alignment. That's all their code demands. Using a bow is not an evil act and is not acting in a fashion outside of the Lawful Good alignment.
Wait, honor says I can't take unfair advantage of an opponent.You're thinking of the Knight, not the Paladin. Paladins have NEVER been forbidden from "taking advantage of an opponent". By your interpretation, Paladins have to fight on a perfectly level playing field, or one that's tilted to the opponent's favor. They can't flank enemies, they can't use tactics, they have to march straight forward into the maws of death. After all, attacking from the side is dishonorable.
Sorry, no, that's a load of dreck. Paladins cannot take evil acts, must not associate with the wrong people, and must maintain a Lawful Good alignment. That's all their code demands. Using a bow is not an evil act and is not acting in a fashion outside of the Lawful Good alignment.
Paladins originally were conceptually knights to the nth degree.. ie a paragon knight, one who epitomizes the virtues of law, good, and justice. A paladin fights fairly, does not take advantage of an opponent, and meets his opponent in personal melee combat whenever possible. He extends fairness to his opponents and treats his foes with respect and courtesy. He is a paragon of virtue and goodliness. If your idea of a paladin is different than that then yes, we have no further discussion. If we can not agree to that much then there is no point in going any further.
jreyst where exactly are you getting the idea about a paladin fighting fairly, not take advantage of weaknesses, or meeting in melee whenever they can?
Not harping on you, I just like reading sources for peoples ideas :)
I know I've read of several noble, honor bound samurai who favored the longbow. It doesn't really seem like such a taboo idea as you present in literature.
I'm going with the description of the class used in every edition of the rules prior to 3.x as well as common perception of the meaning of paladin. Now certainly some characters from other cultures may exude paladin-like virtues but you can't honestly tell me that you don't hold a paladin to the common code of chivalry and honor?
Do you not see the paladin as a virtuous knight of honor exemplifying all that is good and just?
And I even decline to accept that this is my old fogy syndrome showing through.
But I believe you are letting it show a bit. :) Maybe it takes a old grognard to recognize one.
I would typically be siding with you as well. I think you may be taking your vision of Paladins from the same sources that I do (1st edition, 2nd edition, maybe some splatbooks). I'd reference 1st and 2nd edition books, but I'd have to drag them out of storage. However, what is the point. There is still room for a Paladin that adheres to a strict code of honor, and what he/she feels is fighting fairly. Paizo has evolved the Paladin a bit, which I think is a good thing. It now encompasses more character concepts, such as the Paladin of Erastril that the OP is trying to build. It is essentailly a holy archer in a viking type world. It is not my cup of tea at first glance, but who knows, maybe I'll play one someday. I certainly can't tell someone that they're playing their character concept incorrectly.
You're thinking of the Knight, not the Paladin. Paladins have NEVER been forbidden from "taking advantage of an opponent". By your interpretation, Paladins have to fight on a perfectly level playing field, or one that's tilted to the opponent's favor. They can't flank enemies, they can't use tactics, they have to march straight forward into the maws of death. After all, attacking from the side is dishonorable.
Sorry, no, that's a load of dreck. Paladins cannot take evil acts, must not associate with the wrong people, and must maintain a Lawful Good alignment. That's all their code demands. Using a bow is not an evil act and is not acting in a fashion outside of the Lawful Good alignment.
I have to side with Jreyst here ... I've played (he's still alive too) a 1st edition Level 11 Paladin. Lawful Stupid comes from somewhere. And that's the paladin.
Paladins originally were conceptually knights to the nth degree.. ie a paragon knight, one who epitomizes the virtues of law, good, and justice. A paladin fights fairly, does not take advantage of an opponent, and meets his opponent in personal melee combat whenever possible. He extends fairness to his opponents and treats his foes with respect and courtesy. He is a paragon of virtue and goodliness. If your idea of a paladin is different than that then yes, we have no further discussion. If we can not agree to that much then there is no point in going any further.
This is a small summary of the 1st Edition Paladin/Cavalier class.
Although paladins may use any weapons and armor, as cavaliers they have restrictions placed upon them in terms of their honor. All paladins will learn the lance first (MyWorld rules do not distinguish types of lances for proficiency purposes; to learn the lance is to learn light, medium, and heavy variations equally). They will also especially choose from Long Sword, Broad Sword, and Scimitar as a weapon of choice, and similarly between Horseman's Mace, Horseman's Flail, and Horseman's Military Pick as an additional weapon of choice. These weapons (the lance, one of the three swords, and one of the three other weapons) become the paladin's weapons of choice, discussed below. Although it is possible to delay choosing a sword until level 3 and an other weapon of choice until level 5, the character will gain significant benefits with the designated weapon before that time if the weapon is chosen sooner. Apart from weapons of choice, the character has a list of preferred weapons from which he must choose before taking proficiency in any others. These include those not chosen from the list as weapons of choice (i.e., the other two swords and the other two horseman's weapons), plus bastard sword, short sword, dagger, and javelin. All of these weapons must be learned (proficiency slots spent on them) prior to any other weapons being studied.
Furthermore, the paladin will avoid weapons which deal out damage at a distance, as calling into question his honor. Only paladins well above the twentieth level will take proficiency in two-handed sword, polearms, or missile weapons which have no melee function apart from those listed. Even non-proficient use of such weapons calls into question his bravery, and is considered unchivalrous; this can lead to grade or even experience penalties.
Yes .. the 1st edition Paladin was VERY hard to roleplay correctly.
You ALWAYS have to call the attention of the person/monster you will attack.
You NEVER attack from behind.
DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR ... NEVER RETREAT ...
My Paladin (Sir Julian Whitewater) frequently had to be pulled away by his partymembers in the face of imminent death. On the other side I "sacrificed" myself on MANY occasions so my companions could escape.
It was alot of fun to play ... but rather difficult. Quite alot more difficult then (sigh) a halfling paladin with a bow. It .. just does not fit the profile.
I also see the Paladin as a Holy Warrior with either a sword or mace and the biggest armor and shield he can find.
Just my 2 cents :P
Apart from the rants here on the paladin not fitting the profile.
Yes, the archer paladin kicks @ss ;)
Specially when mounted, massive move and a hail of arrows.
-TDL
I'm going with the description of the class used in every edition of the rules prior to 3.x as well as common perception of the meaning of paladin. Now certainly some characters from other cultures may exude paladin-like virtues but you can't honestly tell me that you don't hold a paladin to the common code of chivalry and honor?
Do you not see the paladin as a virtuous knight of honor exemplifying all that is good and just?
Sure. But I don't see him as an idiot.
'Paladin', from the Latin, 'Palatinus': the Palatinae were the Roman Imperial Guard, attached to the Imperial Palace. The title was used in both Rome and Constantinople, so if you're pinning a culture on the classic Paladin, that culture is Middle Eastern (Byzantine) as well as European.
Sure, too, the D&D paladin is based on the medieval chivalric paladin, rather than its Roman ancestor...except that Charlemagne and Roland are 8th century, and the Byzantines are going for half a millennium after that, so both the Imperial Guard and the Knight run concurrently in history.
Anyway, take Charlemagne's/Roland's Paladins, for the sake of argument:
(1) Ogier the Dane: slew Charlemagne's son in a revenge attack.
(2) Fierabras: stole the unguent applied to Jesus from Rome
(3) Olivier says that "Heroism tempered with common sense is a far cry from madness."
(4) Renaud kills Charlemagne's nephew in a brawl
(5) Ganelon plots an ambush
To be fair, all these knights of Roland bears swords - but then they would; the sword was a Christian and a class symbol. I think it's clear, though, that they would use various means to reach various ends, and that the source material for the D&D Paladin represents a knight far more human, and cunning, than the classic Lawful Stupid trope.
Just sayin. :)
I do not have any problem with a paladin resorting to a bow if his opponent refuses to face him in honorable personal combat or if the paladin can not reach the foe in time to prevent that foe from harming an innocent. In fact, I am playing a paladin in a campaign right now and he has a bow. He has never used it though because he chooses to face all opponents honorably and bravely, not flinging weapons safely from a distance, taking advantage of his foe.
Yes, I am going with the classic depiction of paladin, not a dictionary definition and not one based on an 8th century version. I'm going with the paladin as described by Gary Gygax. To Gary, the paladin was a brave, honorable warrior devoted to good and justice who epitomized the virtues of chivalry and the knightly code of honor. Any paladin that does not abide by that code is not a paladin but a warrior who is calling himself a paladin. A lawful good god, in the classical sense, one who maintains orders of paladins, would certainly not abide a paladin in his service who fights dishonorably, taking unfair advantage of his opponents. A paladin would never use poison, would never attack an unready opponent, would never attack by surprise, and would only resort to ranged weapons if no other option existed.
Or, at least that's how paladins work in my campaigns. Everyone else is free to do as they like but please admit that you are no longer playing the classic paladin. You are playing some modern deviant of the paladin, one who is vastly different from Gary's depiction and concept of a paladin.
|
Or, at least that's how paladins work in my campaigns. Everyone else is free to do as they like but please admit that you are no longer playing the classic paladin. You are playing some modern deviant of the paladin, one who is vastly different from Gary's depiction and concept of a paladin.
This is an "agree to disagree" situation. And yes, a 3.x/pf paladin IS different than a 1e paladin, I wont argue with you on that. Looking at the paladin code, it says nothing forbidding ranged weapons, it says the paladin must fight with honor. There is nothing dishonorable about fighting with a ranged weapon, despite your feelings so. This is the KEY point that makes this entire thread de-railing impossible to argue. The minute you call it dishonorable, your telling that poor ranger, and every archer in an army, or that dex fighter who uses a bow to start a fight, that "Hey, you are not acting with honor, and are violating my code. Repeat this and I will not work with you." Paladin code DOES specifically state that part (a paladin doesn't work with anyone who "consistently offends her code"), with your version of honor a paladin could never work with ANY ranged character. Just because you have a classic image of what the class represents doesn't mean that D&D/PF class will always follow that image, see the Fighter in APG thread for more. Someone always has an image of the class, and its not always going to be the same as what the hobby presents. Now can we stop threadjacking this poor user's thread and offer them some help? This side-discussion seems best suited to a new thread :)
Paladins were quite powerful, especially after they moved out of the fighter specialization area and into the cavalier class (a pretty overpowered class already).
Of course most of the balance in 1e was assumed to be a function of rolling 3d6 in order for stats. The actual percentage of characters that actually qualified for paladin status as a result (cavaliers had heinous prerequisites and a 17 for charisma was brutal) was vanishingly small.
Later on when 4d6 arrange as desired became the norm Paladins became much more commonplace until everyone started playing them lawful stupid and things got out of hand.
Further the paladin code of conduct rules were relatively simple to play with in comparison to the 1e Barbarian class restrictions (will not join part with clerical caster until 4th, no arcane caster until 9th) those were gamebreakers.
This is an "agree to disagree" situation.
Yes.
And yes, a 3.x/pf paladin IS different than a 1e paladin, I wont argue with you on that.
Yes.
Looking at the paladin code, it says nothing forbidding ranged weapons, it says the paladin must fight with honor.
Correct.
There is nothing dishonorable about fighting with a ranged weapon, despite your feelings so.
To be clear, I couldn't care less about fighting with a ranged weapon. I think its an awesome tactic and I generally prefer ranged attack characters. I'm simply saying that the classic depiction of a paladin and (I think) the common understanding of "fighting honorably" involves attempting to face your opponent in singular melee combat, not flinging death upon your foe from a safe distance. I think that a paladin would view that as a cowardly act to be avoided at all costs.
This is the KEY point that makes this entire thread de-railing impossible to argue.
Agreed.
The minute you call it dishonorable, your telling that poor ranger, and every archer in an army, or that dex fighter who uses a bow to start a fight, that "Hey, you are not acting with honor, and are violating my code. Repeat this and I will not work with you."
I would say that a paladin views that sort of combat cowardly and should be discouraged at all times. I do view though that a paladin would not have a problem resorting to ranged combat if he had no other choice. If his foe refuses to face him honorably or he can not reach his foe in time to prevent the foe from harming an innocent, then he can use a ranged weapon. He would though, feel badly about doing so, even if it wouldn't be a violation of his code.
Just because you have a classic image of what the class represents doesn't mean that D&D/PF class will always follow that image...
Agreed. This is just my frustration with the continued watering down and blandifying of the paladin. I fully expect the next edition of the rules to simply say "A paladin should be good and try to behave himself." ie, so vague that anyone can do basically anything and interpret it basically any way they like.
Edition 1: "Class X is a paragon of good and justice. He fights with a sword and shield, wears heavy armor, and rides a warhorse. He must be virtuous and godly and will not associate with criminals and miscreants."
Edition <latest>: "Class X is usually good. He fights with [whatever he wants] [may or may not] have a [warhorse / pet squirrel / duck / close personal friend]. He fights [however he wants] and may [sometimes] act [honorably / dishonorably / however he feels that day]. He can associate with evil when it suits him."
I see the "Edition <latest>" version as being nothing close to what it was originally set out to be. The fact that they call it a paladin is the only thing in common with its original incarnation (oh and that he has to be Lawful Good, which people seem to interpret a million different ways anyway so that good is that).
Someone always has an image of the class, and its not always going to be the same as what the hobby presents. Now can we stop threadjacking this poor user's thread and offer them some help? This side-discussion seems best suited to a new thread :)
This discussion has been had too many times already. I shouldn't have even brought it up because I think that too many people seem to prefer a paladin being [whatever they want it to be] instead of [what it is]. With that said, play it however you like, its your game. I just know that a paladin is as a paladin always was in my games.
Threadjack completed. :)
This is a small summary of the 1st Edition Paladin/Cavalier class.These rules of honor are absolutely incompatible with the idea that paladins are soldiers, let alone soldiers who regularly fight mindless incarnations of evil and terrifying monsters. How is a paladin charging through a melee supposed to alert everyone present that he may attack them at some point? Why is standing around like an idiot getting fried by a floating beholder more chivalrous or braver than pulling out a bow and returning fire? Why are one-handed weapons more honorable than two-handed weapons?
That's arbitrary nonsense that has nothing to do with honor.
This is straight out of the 1st ed. Unearthed Arcana:
Cavaliers are not limited in which weapons they can use, but certain weapons are preferred over others, such that a cavalier will seek proficiency in these weapons before learning other weapons. These weapons are the lance (required of the 1st-level Armiger), long sword, broad sword, bastard sword, short sword, horseman’s mace, horseman’s flail, horseman’s military pick, dagger, scimitar, and javelin. In addition, elven and half-elven cavaliers will prefer to use a short composite bow. Only after these weapons have been mastered may the cavalier become proficient in the use of other types.
Weapons thatdeal out damage at a distance (including pole arms, missile weapons, and the two-handed sword) call into question the cavalier’s personal bravery, and as such are avoided by all except the most powerful of cavaliers. The cavalier may use these questionable weapons at normal non-proficiency penalties, but their use may violate the character’s chivalric code.
And his code:
The code for a feudal campaign may be summed up as follows.
The DM may adjust this code to fit his or her own campaign.
Noble service cheerfully rendered
Defense of any charge unto death
Courage and enterprise in obediences to rule
Respect for all peers and equals
Honor to all above your station
Obedience and respect from all beneath your station
- Scorn for those who are lowly and ignoble (this includes
knightly limitations on weapons and armor)
Military prowess exercised in service to your lord
Courtesy to all ladies (if the cavalier is male)
War is the flowering of chivalry
Battle is the test of manhood
Combat is glory
Personal glory above all in battle
Death to all who oppose the cause
Death before dishonor
HOWEVER ... this is Pathfinder ... and the ability is there.
Meaning that if you really WANT to play a Halfling Archer Paladin go right ahead.
But to some people (me included) it's a bit awkward.
So let's just agree to disagree here then, and let the TS make the best of his Archer Paladin.
Good luck with it, I'm sure it will be fun :)
-TDL
Let's allow this thread to get back on its tracks (archer paladins).
Please move any further discussion about the paladin's code and the limitations therein (real or implied) to this thread.
+1000 to TDLofCC. I'll say no more, as you said it very clearly. The current paladin is nothing like the original paladin but anyone can play whatever they like however their DM lets them. Go to town.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
You're thinking of the Knight, not the Paladin. Paladins have NEVER been forbidden from "taking advantage of an opponent". By your interpretation, Paladins have to fight on a perfectly level playing field, or one that's tilted to the opponent's favor. They can't flank enemies, they can't use tactics, they have to march straight forward into the maws of death. After all, attacking from the side is dishonorable.
Sorry, no, that's a load of dreck. Paladins cannot take evil acts, must not associate with the wrong people, and must maintain a Lawful Good alignment. That's all their code demands. Using a bow is not an evil act and is not acting in a fashion outside of the Lawful Good alignment.
I have to side with Jreyst here ... I've played (he's still alive too) a 1st edition Level 11 Paladin. Lawful Stupid comes from somewhere. And that's the paladin.
Paladins originally were conceptually knights to the nth degree.. ie a paragon knight, one who epitomizes the virtues of law, good, and justice. A paladin fights fairly, does not take advantage of an opponent, and meets his opponent in personal melee combat whenever possible. He extends fairness to his opponents and treats his foes with respect and courtesy. He is a paragon of virtue and goodliness. If your idea of a paladin is different than that then yes, we have no further discussion. If we can not agree to that much then there is no point in going any further.This is a small summary of the 1st Edition Paladin/Cavalier class.
[snip Unearthed Arcana cavalier rules]
This was more or less the source I figured for the attitude. The cavalier, as it first appeared in Dragon 72 and was later incorporated into UA, did in fact have a stipulation against using ranged weapons (with a specific exception made for elven cavaliers using bows). When UA came out and paladin was moved from being a fighter sub-class to a cavalier sub-class, it also had this restriction applied to it. Originally, however, this was not the case.
My first D&D character ever was a 1st Ed paladin, but from the Player's Handbook, wherein the paladin was an honorable and just champion of good and virtue, but no notion was ever made about restriction of weapon choice (in fact it quite specifically stated that paladins could use "any" weapons), nor from attacking with flaming oil or other unusual weapons, nor from attacking during a surprise round.
In fact, I have my 1st Ed PH right here within arm's reach, and the paladin class lists the strictures of the paladin class, more onerous than any other class. We have, of course, the stricture on no chaotic acts (or need atonement) and no evil acts (or lose paladinhood forever). Also, we have the big five listed out for us:
#5 - take service or alliance with other LG characters
#4 - only LG henchmen, only associate with other good chars, or neutral in an emergency
#3 - tithe 10%
#2 - do not retain excess wealth
and, finally
#1 - No more than 10 magic items (1 armor, 1 shield, 4 wpns, 4 other
This one, #1, is the one that is really instructive here, because it also contains a specific note about magic weapons that "these include daggers, swords, etc.; and such item as magic bows and magic arrows are considered as but 1 weapon."
Hmm... magic bows and magic arrows. Now why would the 1st Ed PH make a specific point of mentioning that paladins could use them as one of their restricted number of magic weapons if they weren't supposed to use them?
Being a true champion of all that is good, a defender of the weak, giving succor to the oppressed and meting out devastation to the wicked, these are the meat and drink of the paladin class. Combat style or choice of weapon doesn't enter into it, whether the paladin uses a bastard sword, battleaxe, bow, or bec de corbin.
The cavalier is the class that was designed to fit the tropes of the European chivalric ideal, heavy armor (including the first iteration of full plate in the game, though field plate had been in there as a hidden rule in the 1st Ed DMG), the lance/sword/mace combat combo, the "never retreat" attitude, and the disdain for missile weapons. The paladin was never that before being rolled into the cavalier class in UA, and it was never that after the game moved to 2nd Ed (though I don't doubt there was a kit in the Complete Paladin's HB in 2nd that went back to the cavalier-style model).
If your vision of the paladin is was born during the 1st Ed Unearthed Arcana days, I can see why you interpret the paladin as you do. For those who started playing before then or after then, that vision of what a paladin is or can be is not nearly so hard-wired into that model as being the only one possible for being a paladin.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I do not have any problem with a paladin resorting to a bow if his opponent refuses to face him in honorable personal combat or if the paladin can not reach the foe in time to prevent that foe from harming an innocent. In fact, I am playing a paladin in a campaign right now and he has a bow. He has never used it though because he chooses to face all opponents honorably and bravely, not flinging weapons safely from a distance, taking advantage of his foe.
Yes, I am going with the classic depiction of paladin, not a dictionary definition and not one based on an 8th century version. I'm going with the paladin as described by Gary Gygax. To Gary, the paladin was a brave, honorable warrior devoted to good and justice who epitomized the virtues of chivalry and the knightly code of honor. Any paladin that does not abide by that code is not a paladin but a warrior who is calling himself a paladin. A lawful good god, in the classical sense, one who maintains orders of paladins, would certainly not abide a paladin in his service who fights dishonorably, taking unfair advantage of his opponents. A paladin would never use poison, would never attack an unready opponent, would never attack by surprise, and would only resort to ranged weapons if no other option existed.
Or, at least that's how paladins work in my campaigns. Everyone else is free to do as they like but please admit that you are no longer playing the classic paladin. You are playing some modern deviant of the paladin, one who is vastly different from Gary's depiction and concept of a paladin.
This is not only flat wrong but also backwards, because you're referring to the depiction and concept of the cavalier-paladin from Unearthed Arcana (written by Gary in 1985), as opposed to the original paladin from the Player's Handbook (written by Gary in 1978).
Ironically, you are actually the one who is playing the "modern deviant of the paladin, one who is vastly different from "Gary's depiction and concept of a paladin" as he originally described the class.
I thought we were done thread-jacking :)
I'll note that I never said a paladin would never use a bow or ranged weapon, just that they would be weapons of last resort. I have trouble understanding how someone could imagine that using a ranged weapon upon an enemy would fit into a classic understanding of "fighting honorably". If you accept that a paladin adheres to the knightly virtues then one of those is fighting honorably. Fighting honorably does not include using ranged weapons when your opponent does not. To do so would be a cowardly act when considered in terms of the classic views of honorable combat. So basically it comes down to, if you do not feel that a paladin was intended to model a holy knight, one who is a paragon of honor, good, and virtue, then you can have your paladin do whatever you like. I simply state that I do believe a paladin is supposed to be a paragon of honor, good, justice, and virtue. Raining arrows down upon an enemy when that enemy seeks to fight you in honorable combat is cowardly any way you slice it.
This is not only flat wrong but also backwards, because you're referring to the depiction and concept of the cavalier-paladin from Unearthed Arcana (written by Gary in 1985), as opposed to the original paladin from the Player's Handbook (written by Gary in 1978).
Ironically, you are actually the one who is playing the "modern deviant of the paladin, one who is vastly different from "Gary's depiction and concept of a paladin" as he originally described the class.
If you honestly do not believe that the "paladin as holy knight" is not the archetype that Gary was going for when he originally created it then we really don't have a discussion here. We're probably better off letting this go and letting this thread get back to its original purpose.
I thought we were done thread-jacking :)
I'll note that I never said a paladin would never use a bow or ranged weapon, just that they would be weapons of last resort. I have trouble understanding how someone could imagine that using a ranged weapon upon an enemy would fit into a classic understanding of "fighting honorably". If you accept that a paladin adheres to the knightly virtues then one of those is fighting honorably. Fighting honorably does not include using ranged weapons when your opponent does not. To do so would be a cowardly act when considered in terms of the classic views of honorable combat. So basically it comes down to, if you do not feel that a paladin was intended to model a holy knight, one who is a paragon of honor, good, and virtue, then you can have your paladin do whatever you like. I simply state that I do believe a paladin is supposed to be a paragon of honor, good, justice, and virtue. Raining arrows down upon an enemy when that enemy seeks to fight you in honorable combat is cowardly any way you slice it.
If you honestly do not believe that the "paladin as holy knight" is not the archetype that Gary was going for when he originally created it then we really don't have a discussion here. We're probably better off letting this go and letting this thread get back to its original purpose.This is not only flat wrong but also backwards, because you're referring to the depiction and concept of the cavalier-paladin from Unearthed Arcana (written by Gary in 1985), as opposed to the original paladin from the Player's Handbook (written by Gary in 1978).
Ironically, you are actually the one who is playing the "modern deviant of the paladin, one who is vastly different from "Gary's depiction and concept of a paladin" as he originally described the class.
I think it really depends on the personal interpretation of what a paladin is, more then anything stated. Paladin's need to be able to fight and be an effective part of the team, and if you get too literal/strict with Paladins then you're really just hurting your players.
Besides, I've always thought it was a little ridiculous that all Paladins have the SAME code. A paladin of Erastil should be completely different from a paladin of Sarenrae, down to having different vows and a more religion specific code. I hope to see something like this in the advanced players guide.
I think it really depends on the personal interpretation of what a paladin is, more then anything stated. Paladin's need to be able to fight and be an effective part of the team, and if you get too literal/strict with Paladins then you're really just hurting your players.
A paladin is clearly defined based on prior editions. Unfortunately, the paladin of the current edition is the same as before minus all the annoying hard to play bits. Its not like they redefined the paladin, they just removed the parts people complained about. No one even really added anything in the place of the removed bits, just vague terms meant to suggest the former role of the class. Also, each edition makes the paladin less of a paladin and more of just a general purpose holy warrior. I'm fine with there being holy warriors for all gods, just don't call them paladins. Paladins are lawful good. End of story, move on :)
The problem is that the class, in my realllllly humble opinion, is not a "vague" general purpose class. A fighter is a vague general purpose class. He fits into any setting or genre. A Paladin is a very specific thing. Paladin is not a general purpose term. Its not like "cleric" which is generic. A "paladin" is a specific thing. Perhaps its a fault of the class that it is specific, but it is what it is. If we changed the name to "Knight" or "Cavalier" would people still complain that he should be able to run around flinging arrows from long distance never facing enemies in personal honorable combat? No, because a knight is very specific and defined. A paladin is, in my opinion, a knight who is also holy. He abides by both codes, the code of knightly chivalry and the code of his lawful good god.
Besides, I've always thought it was a little ridiculous that all Paladins have the SAME code. A paladin of Erastil should be completely different from a paladin of Sarenrae, down to having different vows and a more religion specific code. I hope to see something like this in the advanced players guide.
All paladins have the same code because they are one thing. Its like saying "I'm frustrated all Red Wizards of Thay are from Thay and have to have red in their names." Paladins are very specific, not general purpose, "be whatever you need/want them to be." And again, I have absolutely no problem with there being different holy warriors for different gods, just do not call them paladins. You demean what it means to be a paladin when you make it so vague as to mean nothing.
So with that said, I really have to bow out of this as I give up. People disagree, fine, I get it. Whatever works for you.
I think it really depends on the personal interpretation of what a paladin is, more then anything stated. Paladin's need to be able to fight and be an effective part of the team, and if you get too literal/strict with Paladins then you're really just hurting your players.A paladin is clearly defined based on prior editions. Unfortunately, the paladin of the current edition is the same as before minus all the annoying hard to play bits. Its not like they redefined the paladin, they just removed the parts people complained about. No one even really added anything in the place of the removed bits, just vague terms meant to suggest the former role of the class. Also, each edition makes the paladin less of a paladin and more of just a general purpose holy warrior. I'm fine with there being holy warriors for all gods, just don't call them paladins. Paladins are lawful good. End of story, move on :)
The problem is that the class, in my realllllly humble opinion, is not a "vague" general purpose class. A fighter is a vague general purpose class. He fits into any setting or genre. A Paladin is a very specific thing. Paladin is not a general purpose term. Its not like "cleric" which is generic. A "paladin" is a specific thing. Perhaps its a fault of the class that it is specific, but it is what it is. If we changed the name to "Knight" or "Cavalier" would people still complain that he should be able to run around flinging arrows from long distance never facing enemies in personal honorable combat? No, because a knight is very specific and defined. A paladin is, in my opinion, a knight who is also holy. He abides by both codes, the code of knightly chivalry and the code of his lawful good god.
Besides, I've always thought it was a little ridiculous that all Paladins have the SAME code. A paladin of Erastil should be completely different from a paladin of Sarenrae, down to having different vows and a more religion specific code. I hope to see...
I understand what you're saying man, its just that I've had that same general complaint since the paladin's inception in D and D... the code needs to be tailored to the individual order (something that was tackled, and I thought very well in the 2nd Edition Paladin's Handbook)... but what you're saying isn't INVALID, I just don't necessarily agree with it.... you're always entitled to your way of thought though, you know?
I am curious as to how you guys and gals would handle a 5th level Paladin who, as a servant of Erastil, would handle a ranged weapon focus. 20 point buy.
Hmmm...
Str 6 (-2 race)Dex 18 (+2 race)
Con 8 (+1 4th level)
Int 12
Wis 11
Cha 19 (+2 race)
That's what I rolled anyways (adjusted very slightly to match point-buy), for my halfling paladin (currently 4th level, +1 level of Bard to start).
Light Crossbow for ranged, small greatsword for melee (d10!). Probably should swap the Int 12 to Int 10/Str 8.
Smiting is *fun*! Smiting, point blank, deadly aim, and a MW crossbow gives me +13 for 1d6+8, +12 vs. undead, etc. And AC 23.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought we were done thread-jacking :)
It's what happens when I follow along and reply rather than get to the end of a thread and then reply.
I'll note that I never said a paladin would never use a bow or ranged weapon, just that they would be weapons of last resort. I have trouble understanding how someone could imagine that using a ranged weapon upon an enemy would fit into a classic understanding of "fighting honorably".
There are two problems with this:
1. By the "classic understanding" of medieval chivalry, "honorable combat" can only occur between "honorable combatants." It not only does not exist when fighting the base and the ignoble, it literally CANNOT exist. It's the medieval equivalent of "there are no winners in a poo fight." Honorable single combat can only be engaged in between peers.
A knight is expected to scorn the ignoble and the base (as quoted from the UA code of conduct upthread), and in the classic understanding was expected to literally trample their lessers into the mud to clear a path to their rightful opponents (see the French arbalesters at Crecy for a historical example). Anyone not of a knight's station is literally incapable of replying in kind to a knight's challenge to honorable single combat.
A mounted knight who faced another knight in single combat and one was dismounted was expected to also dismount. Remaining mounted when your honorable adversary was not was considered dishonorable.
A mounted knight who faced peasants or mercenaries was expected to ride them down and mow them like wheat. Remaining mounted when your ignoble adversaries were not was considered honorable, as it kept you out of the fray of fighting like a commoner.
2. The fact that D&D is played with character parties rather than single characters moots the possibility of honorable single combat, because that would preclude allies from assisting you. As soon as an ally engages the foe, they have broken the "classic understanding of fighting honorably," because they have ganged up on a foe rather than settling the issue mano e mano (or monstero).
I suppose you could also make the case that virtually all of the D&D universe *is* a last resort, but I think that's going too far down the situational ethics road to justifying anything.
If you accept that a paladin adheres to the knightly virtues then one of those is fighting honorably. Fighting honorably does not include using ranged weapons when your opponent does not. To do so would be a cowardly act when considered in terms of the classic views of honorable combat.
This is a particular viewpoint, one not inherent to paladins but only to cavaliers and cavalier-paladins and to one particular.
Also, to get back to the point of the thread, in Golarion, there is Erastil, the LAWFUL GOOD god of farming, hunting, trade, and family, whose entire ethos is protection of hearth and home, providing for those in need, and raining arrows down upon the wicked with their favored weapon of the longbow.
You also have Iomedae, the LAWFUL GOOD goddess of valor, rulership, justice, and honor, whose entire ethos is holy warfare, crusading, being a shield for the powerless and a smiting hand for the righteous, along with all the classic knightly virtues, including raining down death upon the wicked with their favored weapon of the longsword.
So... a paladin who embodies the very essence of law and goodness, is honorable if they follow and use the favored weapon of LAWFUL GOOD deity B (Iomedae) and not if they follow and use the favored weapon of LAWFUL GOOD deity A (Erastil)?
1st Ed was generic when it came to deities; there was no game-mechanical difference between them. Even so, in 1st Ed the paladin was never constrained towards using ranged weapons, and in fact is SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED AS USING BOWS AND ARROWS in the passage from the PH that I quoted upthread.
So basically it comes down to, if you do not feel that a paladin was intended to model a holy knight, one who is a paragon of honor, good, and virtue, then you can have your paladin do whatever you like.
This is the part that rankles some folks - see, you have presented your case in the Holy Writ of Gary as being the "real" paladin, and anyone with a different vision is playing "their" paladin.
Except it's not true. I'm quoting you chapter and verse from Gary's paladin, his original paladin, not the newer deviation from that original that became the melded cavalier-paladin 7 years later, the one that you insist is the real original paladin as Gary intended.
And the real original paladin, from the 1st Ed PH, uses bows and arrows. This is not my guess or interpretation of Gary. It's right there, black and white, his words not mine.
I'm having a hard time understanding how it is that you can claim a version of a class published SEVEN YEARS after the first version represents "Gary's original vision."
I simply state that I do believe a paladin is supposed to be a paragon of honor, good, justice, and virtue.
I absolutely agree. A paladin is absolutely bound to follow the dictates of lawfulness and goodness. They must be unstintingly lawful and good; this is their first and highest commandment from their inception as a character class.
Raining arrows down upon an enemy when that enemy seeks to fight you in honorable combat is cowardly any way you slice it.
And here's the point where you go off the rails:
1. Dishonorable enemies are, in the classic understanding of chivalry, incapable of engaging in honorable combat and must simply be dispatched as mercifully as possible. You can't honorably fight someone or something THAT HAS NO HONOR! This applied in the classic understanding to peasants and "barbarians" and mercenaries, pretty much everything and everyone other than other knights.
And that was in the real world, where there were not tangible, embodied forces of Ultimate Evil.
2. More importantly, you are equating "melee" with "honor" AND going further by equating that particular version of "honor" with "law and goodness"; by implication, any paladin who doesn't go all melee all the time isn't REALLY following the tenets of law and goodness.
So, if I may snark for a moment, does using a ranged weapon constitute a chaotic act or an evil act?
If you honestly do not believe that the "paladin as holy knight" is not the archetype that Gary was going for when he originally created it then we really don't have a discussion here.This is not only flat wrong but also backwards, because you're referring to the depiction and concept of the cavalier-paladin from Unearthed Arcana (written by Gary in 1985), as opposed to the original paladin from the Player's Handbook (written by Gary in 1978).
Ironically, you are actually the one who is playing the "modern deviant of the paladin, one who is vastly different from "Gary's depiction and concept of a paladin" as he originally described the class.
Actually, if you read the 1st Ed PH and "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" in Dragon back in the 1980s, you'd see that Gary actually envisioned the "holy knight" class as the CLERIC, not the paladin. Check it out, 1st Ed. PH, p. 20:
"This class of character bears a certain resemblance to religious orders of knighthood of medieval times."
That's the cleric.
By comparison, go over to the paladin description in the PH, or in the DMG, and see if there is any mention of knights, knighthood, squires, chivalry, or dislike of ranged combat. There is none. In fact, there is the opposite, a specific comment that they DO use bows and arrows.
The UA cavalier-paladin is actually the ONLY version of the paladin from ANY edition of the game that has any problem with ranged combat.
I won't argue the point that the paladin can make an ideal "knight in shining armor," but I will absolutely agrue the point that a paladin may ONLY be a "knight in shining armor" of a very specific type. That's the UA cavalier-paladin; it IS what you are describing, absolutely, 100%.
But a straight-up paladin in its original sense in D&D isn't, and neither is the PF paladin. The PF paladin isn't a "modern deviant from" the original paladin. It's a "modern return to" the original paladin.
We're probably better off letting this go and letting this thread get back to its original purpose.
That sounds fine. :)
Considering that the Gods & magic supplement sort of encourages ranged combat paladins for Erastil, I think they want some "out of the box" paladins
I'm still trying to figure out why using a bow is dishonorable.
Poisons are dishonorable because they use lies and trickery. They're not even evil, they're just intensely chaotic.
Using a bow isn't trickery. It's a standard martial weapon - not even an exotic one. You don't need to go into some back alley to buy a crossbow (though that would be hilarious to RP out with the paladin).
For that matter, paladins range across cultural norms. Paladins are not Judeo-Christian medieval knights. You talk about knightly chivalry, but that's not a part of their code. A paladin of the god of greatswords and personal combat? Yeah, he'd definately shun ranged weapons and want to charge in and mash faces. An elven god of longbows and archery? Why would that paladin choose to pick up a greatsword? Roland Deschain is described as a knight errant, and he uses guns. Is he dishonorable? What about pikes? Reach weapons keep your enemy away from you - are they dishonorable too?
Quite frankly, your entire argument is hinged on bows being a "dishonorable weapon." And I'm not seeing it.
Anyways! Ranged paladin.
You're going to run into some issues. I mean, some crazy, MAD issues. Sorry! Couldn't help myself! You basically require strength (damage), dexterity (hit), constitution (HP), AND Charisma (Paladin goodies), on top of some wisdom for spells. Ouch. That's probably your biggest issue, in fact - you literally need EVERY attribute. Now, there are two feats that can help you, but they're problematic.
1) Zen Archery is a 3.5 feat that lets you use wisdom for your ranged attack modifier instead of dexterity. So that's one less stat you need, but you still need most everything else, and wisdom was never a major stat to begin with. Until you add...
2) Serenity. Dragon Magazine. Not actually usable as it requires a god of peace. But, if SOMEHOW you convince your DM to use it, it basically switches all your charisma abilities to wisdom, letting you make strength and wisdom your two primary stats.
Other then that, MAD really is going to be your biggest problem.
|
*snip*
You're going to run into some issues. I mean, some crazy, MAD issues. Sorry! Couldn't help myself! You basically require strength (damage), dexterity (hit), constitution (HP), AND Charisma (Paladin goodies), on top of some wisdom for spells. *snip*
Actually a paladin no longer has any need for a high Wisdom. Spells are based on his Charisma, as is his Lay on Hands and Smite Evil.
So if I were you I'd probably dump Wisdom and Intelligence and play my Paladin like Dudley Dooright, Captain Hammer or anyone else who is simultaneously simple but overwhelmingly Good.
"You have done much naughty, and that means you must be punished! Face my wrath... FACE IT!"
You may want to go Halfling or Gnome since their stat bonuses are awesome and then you can pick up a flying mount at 5th lvl. DEATH FROM ABOVE!
I think it's funny that the UA quote mentioned simultaneously says the 'shining knight on horseback' weapons are favored above all and ranged is looked down upon, but then specifically calls out that elves and half-elven Cavaliers routinely use/prefer composite short bows.
In my eyes that pretty much sets up a direct correlation to a PRPG Paladin who wants to use the FAVORED WEAPON of their deity Erastil, the longbow (or Crossbow for Abadar). Are they supposed to actually think the favored weapon of their diety is DISHONORABLE?
*snip*
You're going to run into some issues. I mean, some crazy, MAD issues. Sorry! Couldn't help myself! You basically require strength (damage), dexterity (hit), constitution (HP), AND Charisma (Paladin goodies), on top of some wisdom for spells. *snip*Actually a paladin no longer has any need for a high Wisdom. Spells are based on his Charisma, as is his Lay on Hands and Smite Evil.
So if I were you I'd probably dump Wisdom and Intelligence and play my Paladin like Dudley Dooright, Captain Hammer or anyone else who is simultaneously simple but overwhelmingly Good.
"You have done much naughty, and that means you must be punished! Face my wrath... FACE IT!"
You may want to go Halfling or Gnome since their stat bonuses are awesome and then you can pick up a flying mount at 5th lvl. DEATH FROM ABOVE!
Ah, I had missed the bit on wisdom spells.
But, well, the paladin is still suffering from MAD in four attributes. :/. If there was another way of helping with that, it would...well, help.
|
|
Don't raise Constitution above 10.
Your Paladin is a ranged expert and shouldn't be going toe-to-toe with baddies. When he does he should be using his Swift Lay-On-Hands to keep his HPs up.
So then you've only got 3 stats to worry about.
DEX > CHA > STR > CON > WIS > INT
STR 15
DEX 16
CON 10
INT 8
WIS 10
CHA 15
Halfling after ability adjustments
STR 13
DEX 18
CON 10
INT 8
WIS 10
CHA 17
HUMAN after ability adjustments
STR 15
DEX 18
CON 10
INT 8
WIS 10
CHA 15
If you really are worried about your Con, drop you Wis by 2 points and throw them in your Con. I wouldn't worry too much though, just throw your favoured class bonus in there.
|
|
This is bad advice that at best wastes your perfectly reasonable melee ability and at worst will get you killed. Dumping con is not a good idea for any class, and it's especially a bad idea for a class who is perfectly capable of entering melee with no boosts other than smite.
I've played many a character with 10 Con.
The OP asked for Archers, and I don't feel an Archer needs to worry about being damaged as much, especially one who can heal himself as a SWIFT action every turn. Think of those Lay on Hands as bonus HP, they don't take time out of your busy full-attacking schedule and keep you standing if someone does finally get past the party front-lines to hit at you.
If I was in a 4 man-party and was the primary fighter, then by all means I'd tone up my constitution, tone down my dex and rely more on heavy armour. I'd feel bad because I wouldn't be the awesome Archer-Paladin that I wanted to play. Instead I'd be some kind of switch-hitter (and who has the feats for that kind of action? Fighter or Ranger, but that wouldn't be an Archer Paladin.).
In a five man-party then I'd probably have either a fighter, ranger or barbarian to stand toe-to-toe with the monsters while I stand back, and full-attack. They should never get within reach.