|
Instead I'd be some kind of switch-hitter (and who has the feats for that kind of action?You don't need the feats. As long as you don't do something silly like dumping con (and no PC should dump con, pain comes in mobile or ranged forms far too often), you can switch-hit ably simply by owning a proper two-handed weapon. In fact, paladins and clerics are the best classes in the game for switching between ranged and melee on the fly, as long as you don't make yourself suck at melee for no good reason.
And no, less than 1 HP per level of healing is not enough to justify dumping con.
Oh Man In Black... I disagree *drives away wildly* :)
Or juat do whatever you want.
Forgetting everything about the game and fantasy for a moment, the reason I submit that fighting with a bow and ranged or reach weapons in general was "frowned upon" in prior editions of the game is because it is, in my opinion, taking unfair advantage of your opponent.
A knight, or someone who fights with honor, would seek out singular personal melee whenever possible.
A knight, or someone who fights with honor, would not throw something at an enemy and then run away.
A knight, or someone who fights with honor, would seek to ensure his opponent had every opportunity for a fair fight. To defeat an opponent in an unfair fight calls into question the knights ability, not to mention his honor.
You'll likely note I said "knight" above and that's because I feel that the paladin is/was supposed to be a paragon example of a holy knight. A paladin would seek to follow the classic code of chivalry AT least as much as a knight, and even more intensely in some areas. However, if you disagree, and feel that the paladin is NOT (or WAS not) supposed to be a holy knight, then I can see why you would disagree with these assumptions on my part.
Now, if you disagree, and feel it is honorable in the terms a knight might use, to attack an enemy that can not attack you back, then we have vastly different ideas of what honor is and don't have really any grounds for a discussion.
Arabic knights would fight their enemies on battlefields using mounted archery, to ensure they were difficult to bring to melee, to ensure their.... unfair advantage. Yet they still fought with honour.
Mongol warriors used to run from enemies to goad them into chasing them, and then slaughter armies while in full retreat by firing on the run. Try telling Subutai that he fought without honour and watch what happens.
Honour has alot of variations, it isn't just a Frankish charge.
Let me be as clear as I can be:
I am talking about European knights, not middle eastern warriors who might resemble knights, not asian warriors who might resemble "knights", not primitive barbarians warriors who might resemble knights, not african warriors who might resemble knights, not antartic penguin warriors who might resemble knights, not merfolk warriors who might resemble knights. I'm referring to the common, classic, knight in shining armor stereotype.
Yes, yes, yes, if you want to call any one of these other cultures warriors "knights" and then describe their fighting styles as "knightly" go to town. But then we are not discussing the same subject. I'm referring to classic European (and french and british mostly at that) knights.
Jeez.
|
It all comes down to what you consider "honor", J. For everything you've posted for your arguments against a bow, in my opinion, nothing you've argued show it to be dishonorable, it just shows your opinion. James Nelson had a FANTASTIC post that pretty much summed up the opposite side of your argument better than I could, so Ill refrain from adding redundant arguments. On ALL your points, fighting in melee, fighting with honor; every point you make is refuted in that post. Im sorry, I have to say you are in the minority here it seems. Of course, Im not saying you aren't entitled to your opinion or even that your "wrong", no one is wrong here. There are just different ideas about honor, and that stems from the vague meaning of the word.
Let me be as clear as I can be:
I am talking about European knights, not middle eastern warriors who might resemble knights, not asian warriors who might resemble "knights", not primitive barbarians warriors who might resemble knights, not african warriors who might resemble knights, not antartic penguin warriors who might resemble knights, not merfolk warriors who might resemble knights. I'm referring to the common, classic, knight in shining armor stereotype.
Yes, yes, yes, if you want to call any one of these other cultures warriors "knights" and then describe their fighting styles as "knightly" go to town. But then we are not discussing the same subject. I'm referring to classic European (and french and british mostly at that) knights.
Jeez.
Ok, but why? A Paladin is a holy warrior of the gods. They live a strict life , but are rewarded for their faith. My question is why is this limited to the ideals of western knighthood? Khalid ibn al-Walid is just as much a Paladin as Roland or Richard the Lionheart.
I'm not saying this is MY definition of fighting honorably.
I am saying I believe this is how the medieval knight felt about fighting with a bow. It could be done, but only when absolutely necessary. To the classic medieval European knight it is my understanding that he felt it was dishonorable to attack from a distance.
I further believe that the Paladin as described in the various editions of the Dungeons and Dragons (and now Pathfinder) game is/was modeled on a classic concept of a medieval European Knight, and a holy one at that.
By extension, one would assume that a paladin would adhere to classic ideals of honor and chivalry as well as the tenets of good and justice.
But I say again, if you do not believe that the paladin is based on those concepts then I don't know what else to say. Everyone is certainly free to play any class however they like. I just think its important to be aware when what you are playing is not the assumed archetype, that of a medieval, european, mounted, heavy armor wearing, often lance wielding, bastion of good and virtue who adheres to the chivalric code. That's a stereotype sure, but the class is very specific anyway.
Ugh. I agree that many (most?) people disagree and want to play all sorts of different characters and get all of the paladin class benefits on top of whatever random character idea they have. I'm just saying that I think a paladin is a package deal. To get the benefits you accept the stereotype. You don't, fine, agree to disagree etc.
Ok, but why? A Paladin is a holy warrior of the gods. They live a strict life , but are rewarded for their faith. My question is why is this limited to the ideals of western knighthood? Khalid ibn al-Walid is just as much a Paladin as Roland or Richard the Lionheart.
The common concept of a paladin in more recent game systems is substantially broadened to allow for paladins of all types of gods certainly.
Let me be clear, I am NOT saying I think there can only be holy warriors of western style gods or even of lawful good gods. I think there can, and should, be holy warriors of all gods and alignments. I simply restrict the word "paladin" to those holy warriors of lawful good gods who adhere to European knightly chivalric codes, including fighting honorably, treating your opponent with respect and fairness, not taking advantage of a weakened foe, offering protection to the weak and innocent, etc.
Ok, I am so done talking about this. I can go on for weeks but people do not seem to agree. That's fine. It's your campaigns. If you imagine paladins backstabbing people with poison dripping daggers, go to town. If you imagine paladins hiding behind cover and firing arrows upon little old ladies, go to town. If you imagine paladins raping and pillaging, because that's how you want paladins to behave and why should someone limit your creativity, man, go to town.
As I said, have at it/go to town. It's your games man :)
|
If you imagine paladins backstabbing people with poison dripping daggers, go to town. If you imagine paladins hiding behind cover and firing arrows upon little old ladies, go to town. If you imagine paladins raping and pillaging, because that's how you want paladins to behave and why should someone limit your creativity, man, go to town.
Poor form, sir. Poor form.
Poor form, sir. Poor form.
How is it "poor form"? There are obviously a wide array of opinions on what "honor" means and what a paladin would or would not do. I'm suggesting that you do whatever works for you in your campaign. Previously I explained my position, to the best of my ability. A few people seemed to share my opinion but most did not.
Each new edition of the rules removes another "sticking point" with the paladin (a rule or requirement that some view as undesirable) while at the same time making the paladins "code" even more vague so that it can be interpreted in wildly different ways. In my opinion this "blandify's" the paladin out of its original concept and into a more general purpose "holy warrior" role that just happens to be called a Paladin, which has a distinct history in the game. I guess I'd rather they just ditch the paladin altogether and replace it with a Holy Warrior class and have rules for having holy warriors for all gods and alignments. Then I'd say you could call those that worship lawful good gods, ride heavy warhorses, follow the classic chivalric codes, and all that I've already discussed, a "paladin" but in an informal, non-official sense. You could call the evil one a "blaggard" etc.
It seems clear to me that the game designers want to encourage a wide variety of paladins in play, including ranged paladins. Since I see fighting with a ranged weapon as something a "classic" paladin would normally have considered only as a last resort (when he could not reach the opponent for honorable combat), I fail to see why someone won't next suggest that a god of poisons and backstabbing is just as entitled to have paladins as any other god.
Therefore, they can do as they like.
All I am saying is how I view it and how I rule in my campaigns. I've never had a shortage of players and only ever had rave reviews for my decades long campaigns. I don't say that to brag so much as to preemptively defend myself from those who's next response might be "well its a good thing I don't play in your campaigns" or "you sound like a horrible DM" etc.
What does this stuff about honor have to do with the actual build?
Shouldn't be in a thread called 'Paladin Code of Honor' or something?
Can we go over possible builds now?
Which is best for a Paladin archer, the weapon or the mount?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Forgetting everything about the game and fantasy for a moment, the reason I submit that fighting with a bow and ranged or reach weapons in general was "frowned upon" in prior editions of the game
Except it wasn't frowned on in prior editions of the game. It was frowned on by one variant version of the class (the cavalier-paladin) in one-half of one edition - the UA phase of 1st Ed, or from 1985 (when UA came out) to 1989 (when 2nd Ed came out).
1st Ed pre-UA (1978-1985) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
1st Ed post-UA (1985-1989) - paladins don't like ranged weapons
2nd Ed (1989-1995) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
2nd Ed Player's Option (1995-1999) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
3.0 (1999-2003) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
3.5 (2003-2009) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
PF (2009-) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
If we're playing the Sesame Street game of "one of these is not like the other ones, which one doesn't belong?" see if you can guess which vision of the paladin is the outlier in prior editions of the game.
Interestingly, in 4th Ed paladins don't favor ranged weapons either, but that probably is more a feature of being bad at using them rather than having a philosophical problem with them.
is because it is, in my opinion, taking unfair advantage of your opponent.
And therein lies the key point, a sense of an "unfair" advantage. Fairness and honor on the battlefield in the way you describe them require the consent of equals, establishing the terms of engagement and the understood rules of quarter, ransom, yielding, acceptable arms, assistance of a squire, etc. It is a specific formal type of combat.
It is an irrelevant consideration when the knight and his party are ambushed by bandits along the road.
A knight, or someone who fights with honor, would seek out singular personal melee whenever possible.
This is true in the sense of classic chivalry only inasmuch as there exists an honorable opponent to engage in singular personal melee combat. In knightly parlance, a person could neither issue nor receive and honorable challenge unless they actually had standing to do so.
A random squire or peasant or mercenary COULD NOT challenge a knight nor vice versa. It would be like challenging a dog or a horse or a bear.
If a knight is facing someone who is not a knight or someone with similar standing and honor, everything you have suggested about the chivalric ideal goes out the window, and if you've studied the medieval history of France and Britain you will find no shortage of cases to support that fact.
A knight, or someone who fights with honor, would not throw something at an enemy and then run away.
Who said anything about running away?
A knight, or someone who fights with honor, would seek to ensure his opponent had every opportunity for a fair fight. To defeat an opponent in an unfair fight calls into question the knights ability, not to mention his honor.
See above - fair fights don't exist between unequal opponents.
By the way, with a strict reading of the UA proscription on polearms or weapons that attack at a distance, a cavalier or cavalier-paladin should never use a lance against foes that don't have reach weapons because it has a longer reach than typical melee weapons and would call their honor into question by granting them an unfair advantage.
You'll likely note I said "knight" above and that's because I feel that the paladin is/was supposed to be a paragon example of a holy knight.
That's a perfectly valid type of paladin, and a terrific version of the class to play. The place of difficulty is the set of assumptions that say:
a. All holy knights = paladins. Flatly not true. Gary himself, quoted upthread, says CLERICS were designed to emulate holy knights. Paladins *CAN* be holy knights, but clerics *ARE* holy knights.
b. All paladins = holy knights (and by extension, since holy medieval French/British knights didn't use bows, paladins shouldn't either). Again, flatly not true. 1st Ed paladins are specifically stated as using bows and arrows. It's right there in the PH. For that matter, even in UA elf and half-elf cavaliers are specifically mentioned as using short composite bows, and even "powerful cavaliers" will do so as well.
c. The holy knight paladin (including disdaining missile weapons) is the ORIGINAL paladin (so anybody playing differently isn't playing the game the right way, as Gary intended it). Flatly not true. PH (1978) predates UA (1985). Which is the original again?
A paladin would seek to follow the classic code of chivalry AT least as much as a knight, and even more intensely in some areas. However, if you disagree, and feel that the paladin is NOT (or WAS not) supposed to be a holy knight, then I can see why you would disagree with these assumptions on my part.
Actually, I think there are some parts of the UA cavalier code that would be anathema to a paladin of any stripe, especially the parts about scorning the commons - paladins should have huge empathy for the meek and lowly of society and a large part of their mission in life should be to stick up for the little guy.
Some things would be irrelevant to a paladin (like choice of weapon; only the UA cavalier-paladin had any constraints on weapon choice). FWIW, my first D&D character ever, a paladin, was proficient in bastard sword, lucern hammer, and dagger at 1st level.
Most of the chivalric code, though, would work just fine for a paladin.
Now, if you disagree, and feel it is honorable in the terms a knight might use, to attack an enemy that can not attack you back, then we have vastly different ideas of what honor is and don't have really any grounds for a discussion.
This seems to be an implicit assumption here that "missile combat = helpless enemy." We can set aside for the moment all of the "prisoner dilemma" alignment traps about what a paladin is supposed to do with a dangerous prisoner that they can't secure, but since when is an opponent at range an opponent that can't attack you back?
You meet at a certain encounter distance. You roll initiative. One side probably moves up to engage the enemy (or they meet in the middle somewhere). People with ranged attacks use those WHILE the other side is moving up. Then the other side moves up and attacks them. At that point, the shooters either drop the missile and hack it up in melee or they move and shoot, with the enemy moving and meleeing them (or moving and shooting in response).
I'm missing the part where using a missile weapon means the enemy can't fight back.
And since your opponents CAN fight back, and the dishonor is predicated on the fiction of them NOT being able to fight back, what again is dishonorable about ranged weapons?
P.S. A bit of a ramble...
In a world full of people that have a jillion magic powers and invisible demons pop out of the woodwork and treasure chests turn into intelligent blobs that eat your face and bears shoot laser beams out of their eyes (okay, I made up that last one), how exactly is a paladin to tell which enemies "can not attack you back"?
And how, exactly, does one honorably fight a zombie? A giant scorpion? A black pudding? A shambling mound?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Ok, I am so done talking about this. I can go on for weeks but people do not seem to agree. That's fine.
Sure.
It's your campaigns.
It is indeed.
If you imagine paladins backstabbing people with poison dripping daggers, go to town. If you imagine paladins hiding behind cover and firing arrows upon little old ladies, go to town. If you imagine paladins raping and pillaging, because that's how you want paladins to behave and why should someone limit your creativity, man, go to town.
WTF?
Umm, this seems like a rather bizarre stretch of the imagination compared to what is ACTUALLY being said, which is simply that "paladins have used bows and arrows in every edition of the game except 1st Ed UA, and even then elves and half-elves (and 'powerful cavaliers') were fine with them."
The things you've listed are explicitly PROHIBITED for paladins, which is actually the opposite of using ranged weapons, which is something that is explicitly ALLOWED for paladins.
I have lots of responses to the above but in the interests of allowing this thread to return to its original purpose I'll refrain from posting. Thanks for the conversation everyone!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
What does this stuff about honor have to do with the actual build?
Shouldn't be in a thread called 'Paladin Code of Honor' or something?
Can we go over possible builds now?
Which is best for a Paladin archer, the weapon or the mount?
If you go with a small paladin (gnome or halfling), the mount might be better just for mobility's sake. If you go human or another medium-sized race, I might lean more towards the weapon.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I have lots of responses to the above but in the interests of allowing this thread to return to its original purpose I'll refrain from posting. Thanks for the conversation everyone!
::handshake::
Feel free to respond in the other "paladin code" thread if you like.
|
Unthreadjacking. This paladin code of honor arguing was always silly.
On Mount vs weapon > Mount for halflings; weapon otherwise. Large mounts are too hard to manuever in dungeon settings to make it practical, but the mount lets halflings switch hit (pull out lance and do ride-bys when they can) and gives them much-needed manuverabiliy. Bow otherwise; getting those keywords is nice.
It's also worth noting if you're going for high level builds that pally 5/sorc 2/arcane archers are the best fighting-style arcane archers; give you a lot of flexibility for buffs, a free keyword to add to the ones from Archer, etc.
Feel free to respond in the other "paladin code" thread if you like.
Reach weapons are dishonorable because paladins are meant to be western knights.
Western knights used reach weapons.
Do you still not see why we're all scratching our heads?
You aren't basing paladins off of European knights. You're basing them off of one very, VERY specific cliche of one very specific type of knight that never even existed to begin with. And whenever anyone disagrees, you jump on them and claim they're making all paladins chaotic evil baby killers. And most maddening, you're wrong. If archery was so horrible and dishonorable, paladins wouldn't fight alongside archers - yet clearly those knights you adore so much did. They also fought using those reach weapons you hate so much.
Poor form, sir. Poor form.How is it "poor form"?
Because you're inventing arguments that have nothing to do with the question on the table and continuing to ignore valid points that have been presented against you to do so. You're just trolling at this point.
I don't think you need to be so aggressive. I already bowed out. I surrender this debate and retreat. Though I depart the battlefield I do not change my views, but then, who cares what I think lol
I don't think you need to be so aggressive. I already bowed out. I surrender this debate and retreat.
Looks like you're still around to me. And you've already said "I surrender this argument" once already this thread and come back.
I am talking about European knights,... I'm referring to the common, classic, knight in shining armor stereotype.
European knights fought mostly other European knights. Surely in a world where any unknown opponent can potentially charm you, spit acid, gas you, breathe fire, web you, turn you to stone, vanish, teleport, fireball, explode, or prove totally immune to your weapons, adding a bow is at best leveling the playing field.
Your way is one way to play a paladin. I've played that one. I've played a fighter with those ethics (didn't have the Cha to be a real 1e paladin). But the thing about RPGs is you can put a twist on old stereotypes.
I'm currently playing a TWF fighter leveling up to take some paladin levels, and using a 2-bladed longsword. If I could redo I might go with bow paladin. It's intriguing to me.
My advice for the build, to get back on track, is get a holy bow as soon as possible.
1st Ed pre-UA (1978-1985) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
1st Ed post-UA (1985-1989) - paladins don't like ranged weapons
2nd Ed (1989-1995) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
2nd Ed Player's Option (1995-1999) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
3.0 (1999-2003) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
3.5 (2003-2009) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
PF (2009-) - paladins like ranged weapons just fine
So what is wrong with the OP's premise,
a Paladin dedicated to a God who unambiguously favors bows/archery, in fact using a bow?
I'm playing an Elven archery Paladin at 3rd level who carries a Curve Blade as a backup. 25 point build, so you'll need to drop the stats down.
STR: 14 (5)
DEX: 15 (7) 17 final
CON: 11 (1) 9 final
INT: 12 (2) 14 final
WIS: 10 (0)
CHA: 16 (10)
Converting this down to 20 point buy, I'd sell the INT down to 10 (Elf mods to 12) and CHA down to 15.
The GM gave everyone double hit points at 1st, and max thereafter, so the CON isn't as bad a problem as some would make it for the game I'm in. Your mileage may vary. My first stat bump will probably go to DEX, second to CON. In a different campaign with rolled hit points, I'd reverse those - especially if I were starting at 5th. I also like having buckets of skill points, hence the high INT.
1st Level: Point Blank Shot
3rd Level: Deadly Aim
4th Level: +1 DEX
5th Level: Rapid Shot; Weapon Bond
7th Level: Many Shot
8th Level: +1 CON (+8 HP)
9th Level: Improved Crit: Curve Blade
11th Level: Leadership
12th Level: +1 CHA
13th Level: Weapon Finesse
15th Level: Power Attack
16th Level: +1 CHA
There is a minor temptation to take Precise Shot and Weapon Focus: Longbow rather than Weapon Finesse and Power Attack, plus a level or Wizard at 16, and doing Arcane Archer to Imbue Arrow, then back to Paladin. Imbuing an arrow with Circle Against Evil 10' radius looks useful.
Leadership at 11 is there to pump up Aura of Justice. See one of my threads on how those combine for terrifying effect.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
My advice for the build, to get back on track, is get a holy bow as soon as possible.
I'd actually say the opposite here; that "holy" might be the last enhancement you'd want on a bow, and here's why:
1. You can already overcome DR/good (or DR/ANYTHING on evil creatures) with your smite ability; and, more importantly,
2. You can do holy with your divine bond (weapon).
Now, if you've gone with a mount, I could see going with a holy weapon, but if not I would more strongly suggest going with enchantments on it that don't overlap what you can already do with divine bond (including straight pluses). That way, you get to double-dip with your divine bond - you get a +1 shock bow and use divine bond to add flaming to it, or holy when you get two pluses worth of bonuses to add.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
There is a minor temptation to take Precise Shot and Weapon Focus: Longbow rather than Weapon Finesse and Power Attack, plus a level or Wizard at 16, and doing Arcane Archer to Imbue Arrow, then back to Paladin. Imbuing an arrow with Circle Against Evil 10' radius looks useful.
In my experience, Precise Shot is an absolute necessity for being an archer (or any kind of ranged combatant with attack rolls, including a ray sorcerer) in an adventuring party, because that -4 penalty to shoot folks in melee comes up SO OFTEN. Yes, sometimes in battle you can pick off other ranged combatants or enemies outside of melee, but in most battles you'll be shooting at someone in melee.
I also like adding Power Attack for primarily ranged combatants (and sometimes Deadly Aim for primarily melee specialists), as it's an easy one-feat dip that gives a pretty fair payoff when you have to switch-hit away from your specialty. Also comes in handy on those occasions when you need to overcome hardness or DR/You Don't Have It.
Woah! What a lot of replies! Great reading - thanks to everyone who quoted their sources, it made it easier to follow and check.
who carries a Curve Blade as a backup
This is something the OP will want to consider carefully. As I mentioned before:
My wife runs a very successful bow paladin in our 3E Planescape game.
Not two games ago she ended up fighting an honorable challenge against a fellow knight; a paladin from a rival order, on directly opposing orders to hers no less! It was very interesting as when the NPC called out his challenge, my wife, without thinking, had her character put away her bow to answer the call. The NPC paladin was unarmed at the time (sword sheathed), so it was honorable to approach him similarly unarmed.
They then discussed the terms of the honorable duel (complete with Knowledge (Religion) checks to discern more about each-others order), before retreating back a pace and drawing their swords.
To get back to the point I was going to make - my wife was very happy to have invested some skills in a melee weapon, as she knew that she would be unable to rely on the bow 100% of the time. My wife picked short-sword (actually, a gladius stylistically), with Weapon Focus and Dazzling Display (PFBeta).
Don't forget to include a back-up melee weapon in your archer build!
Peace,
tfad
Does using a buckler with a bow give a -1 to your attacks in Pathfinder?
So what is wrong with the OP's premise,
a Paladin dedicated to a God who unambiguously favors bows/archery, in fact using a bow?
Its not really my premise. Its in black and white in Gods & Magic, but thanks for the credit
Does using a buckler with a bow give a -1 to your attacks in Pathfinder?
Yes.
If I weren't a fighter I'd be this.
str 16 (14 base +2 racial)
dex 18 (15 base +1 level, +2 enhancement)
con 12
int 10
wis 7
cha 16
HP: 40 5d10+10 (+5 from con, +5 from favoured class)
Saving Throws
Fort: +8 Ref: +8 Will: +5
AC: 23 (+10 from +1 Full Plate, +2 from +1 Buckler, +1 from dex)- Touch 11, Flatfooted 21
Attacks: +1 composite longbow
+6/+6 (+5 BAB, +1 enhance, +4 dex, -2 rapid shot, -2 deadly aim)
1d8+8 dmg (+1 enhance, +4 str, +4 deadly aim)
BAB: +5 CMB: +8 CMB: +12
Feats:
Point Blank Shot (Human bonus)
Precise Shot (lvl 1)
Rapid Shot (lvl 3)
Deadly Aim (lvl 5)
Skills:
Perception +3 (5 ranks-2 for 7 Wis)
Diplomacy +11 (5 ranks, +3 cha, +3 class skill)
Sense Motive +6 (5 ranks, -2 Wis, +3 Class skill)
Gear:
+1 composite longbow
+1 Full Plate
Belt of Incredible Dexterity +2
+1 Buckler
As I levelled, I'd take Many shot as soon as possible, then power attack and quick draw to round out the character.
I've been trying really hard to try to make an eastern warrior type paladin riding a warhorse and shooting a bow, while charging with lances and
falchions when it suits him. The feats just aren't there however, taking the horse as a divine bond means lots of feats you don't have, so it’s better to
take the weapon bond and not worry about it I find.
|
|
Being able to switch-hit is never a "bad thing"; swift action healing makes you a very good "hallway blocker", and occasionally you are needed to flank for the rogue. Basic sword-and-boarding is very feat friendly. I would recommend QuickDraw if you go this route; that way you can full attack as they move in; then immediately pull your weapon and QuickDraw when they are in your face.
Does using a buckler with a bow give a -1 to your attacks in Pathfinder?Yes.Actually, no.
From PFRPG p. 150:
GAH! That's the third time in a row I've been wrong about something despite the fact that I looked it up. I need to start reading descriptions in full. I saw the "You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so" sentence, but not the one immediately before it that makes bows and crossbows the exception. Why wasn't the exception mentioned AFTER the rule rather than before it? That's bad technical writing right there.
|
|
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...
If you don't see a difference between using poison to defeat an enemy and using a bow then I'm not certain there's anything to discuss. Honorable, to you, may mean "melee", but it doesn't to most (many?) other people. Do you also object to paladins attacking when they outnumber their enemy?
I'd have no issues with a *character* that objected to other paladins using ranged weapons to combat enemies. Or to a *character* that objected to paladins engaging in fights where they outnumbered their foe. It might be interesting to find where they draw the line?(For example, is it okay to have half a dozen soldier jump on a Giant's back just because they're bigger? Or does personal honor extend even that far) However, I find nothing dishonorable about the use of a bow. Historically there are some cultures who, at various times, did disdain ranged weapons when it came ot honorable combat. DnD does not solely represent these cultures at these times. I'd suggest keeping your mind open when dealing with other people's settings.
With all that said, I'd suggest focusing on Dex/Str for the character. As has been pointed out Wis is no longer useful for a Paladin (in the casting sense anyway) and you only really need Cha. Do not ignore your Con, just as you wouldn't with any other character. At 20 points (and assuming Human/Half-elf/Half-orc) my stats might looks like:
Str: 14, Dex: 18, Con: 12 , Int: 10, Wis: 8, Cha: 14
If you're willing to drop Con you can make Cha a 15 and put your 4th level bonus there. Same with Str. If you'd prefer not having a really low Wis (which is understandable) there are a few points you can move around. I like skills, so I never suggest lower than a 10 Int, but that's also a possibility. With a lot of points invested in Dexterity having a few skill points to put in Dex skills, even if non-traditional paladin skills, might turn out useful.
|
|
Personally I'd go human or halflings; half Orc is nice (when you can free action heal) but feats are needed; failing that, having more Chr and AC is always a boon (saves and smallness). Halfling + mount is good damage output as well; send your dog to battle :).
As to stats, unless you have moral objections I'd int 7 wis 7 and str: 12. With the 9 gained you can dex to 20 chr to 15; makes for a more powerful build. The halfling is worse low levels; as you go higher the loss of 2 damage per shot becomes far less relevant; and the save bonuses far more so. Plus, Medium mounts are great; move through dungeons at good speed with ease.
Just wanted to add that in my Eberron game, The Silver Flame specifically states that the chosen weapon is the Longbow and the followers are encouraged to master its use.
So if I am a Paladin of The Silver Flame, I would be defying my deity if I ignored that stipulation.
|
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.
This is more or less true for the stereotypical paladin, but PCs are the exceptions. Paladins of the Silver Flame in Eberron, for example, prefer longbows because they prefer not to risk exposure to the evils that they fight, such as lycanthropy or other afflictions.
Sure, mechanically they become immune to that kind of stuff, but I think the reasoning is sound. A ranged paladin is still all about honor and defeating evil, he is just a little bit more clever about it and makes use of all of the tactics he has available to him.
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.
This is an example of a terrible argument. You feel paladins shouldn't use bows. Your paladin is perfectly allowed to not use a bow. That should not preclude others from playing their character the way they want to. You have completely sidestepped the issue and chosen to use an example of a paladin using poison, something explicitly forbidden in their code of conduct. You are comparing their explicitly forbidden to the class (poison) to something explicitly given by the class weapon proficiency martial(longbow).
A mounted charge with a lance against a footman isn't exactly "fair" but I don't see you claiming that paladins can't charge unless their opponent has brace weapon readied against them.
|
|
A new thread has been started for ethics. Could you please move that argument? This would actually be a good discussion thread if you did :). And no need to try to get in closing comments; this thread assumes someone wants a Pally-archer, and wants fun or powerful ideas for it. Contribute to that line or leave.
A new thread has been started for ethics. Could you please move that argument? This would actually be a good discussion thread if you did :). And no need to try to get in closing comments; this thread assumes someone wants a Pally-archer, and wants fun or powerful ideas for it. Contribute to that line or leave.
I was replying to a reply made to my comment here on this thread, as I am now. Here's a people skills tip for you.. telling people what to do on the internet is even slightly less effective than face to face, but it doesn't really work good in any situation. Good day.
|
|
Perhaps I should remind people that I have purposely and willingly dropped out of this argument/debate many posts ago with the intention of letting the original thread get back on track. I do not plan to respond to any posts in this thread having to do with my opinions on how a paladin should behave.
You can continue talking to the wind and further jacking this thread if you like though.
Edit: So we are clear, I am jreyst from above.
