My player wants to play a Paladin! What do I do?


Advice

101 to 113 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Megistone wrote:

I could totally play a lawful stupid character without being a Paladin. What's the difference?

If a character is problematic for the group because of her beliefs or her goals or her ways, the problem is not her class.

So, it's good if every player agrees beforehand on what is or is not acceptable for the group; of course if it's an evil campaign, paladins won't be a choice. But in most cases, why not? Just don't play the paladin in a stupid, exaggerated stereotypical caricature of the class, and everything will be ok.

I'm just against people being told as a group, "you are not allowed to play this and this" yet one guy asked nicely so he can play this character type the rest of the group were not allowed to play."(add to that the Paladin is one of the strongest martial classes if not the strongest)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azullius Koujou wrote:
(add to that the Paladin is one of the strongest martial classes if not the strongest)

AH.

HEM.


AM BARBARIAN wrote:
Azullius Koujou wrote:
(add to that the Paladin is one of the strongest martial classes if not the strongest)

AH.

HEM.

i agree bloodrager, barbarian, unchained monk, fighter(with the appropriate options)and slayer are all better martials than the paladin

Scarab Sages

Lady-J wrote:
AM BARBARIAN wrote:
Azullius Koujou wrote:
(add to that the Paladin is one of the strongest martial classes if not the strongest)

AH.

HEM.

i agree bloodrager, barbarian, unchained monk, fighter(with the appropriate options)and slayer are all better martials than the paladin

Damage dealers perhaps, staying alive not so much, at least based on my experience so far.

Good ac, good saves, many immunities and lay on hands = Paladins is probably the hardest martial to take down.(at least based on what i've seen)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

COUNTERPOINT: PALADIN AM NOT HAVING SPELL SUNDER, AM ALSO NOT AS GOOD AT SAVING AS BARBARIAN, AND BARBARIAN AC AM IRRELEVANT WHEN BARBARIAN AM ATTACKING ENEMY FIRST WITH KNOCKBACK FOR KNOCKING ENEMY OUT OF RANGE IN FIRST PLACE. TO WHICH REPLY AM USUALLY 'JUST USE MORE MOOKS THAN BARBARIAN HAVE AOOS,' TO WHICH REPLY AM 'DAMAGE REDUCTION, MOOKS AM BASICALLY NOT WORTH PAPER STATS AM PRINTED ON.'

THIS AM NOT EVEN GETTING INTO CRAZY LEVELS OF AWESOME THAT AM BARBARIAN ON FLYING MOUNT.

MOSTLY SPELL SUNDER, THOUGH. YES, SPELL SUNDER AM THAT IMPORTANT. OTHERWISE PALADIN AM TENDING GET CHUMPED BY THINGS LIKE MIRROR IMAGE OR MAZE.

EDIT: AND NOT GET BARBARIAN STARTED ON POUNCE. PALADIN AM HAVING THAT FULL ATTACK PROBLEM THAT KEEP CROPPING UP.


Aberrant Bloodrager with tumor familiar is also supposed to be incredibly hard to kill.


In my experience playing most of the problems surrounding paladins come from the other players, not the paladin. They just feel like they have to pay 'poke the paladin' at all times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see DMs play that game more than players.


Azullius Koujou wrote:
I'm just against people being told as a group, "you are not allowed to play this and this" yet one guy asked nicely so he can play this character type the rest of the group were not allowed to play."(add to that the Paladin is one of the strongest martial classes if not the strongest)

You raise a good point. And if others were as restive with their characters, I'd have to talk it over with them. But they've got strong characters they're enjoying. So I don't think it's a prob in this case.


I think it's reasonable to make case by case exceptions on things you wouldn't normally allow, just because sometimes you disallow things because they have the tendency to be disruptive, but you can trust that a specific person might be able to manage it without being disruptive.

Like if you disallow evil characters, and someone who you know to be a non-disruptive player comes to you with a strong concept for a LE character that wouldn't work nearly as well as LN, I figure you let them if you trust them.

There are some things you disallow in general just because you don't want them to be especially common, not that you don't want them to ever happen. There's also the case where you want to disallow something until you make yourself comfortable with how to handle it (e.g. new classes just came out) and sometimes you forget to follow through.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think it's reasonable to make case by case exceptions on things you wouldn't normally allow, just because sometimes you disallow things because they have the tendency to be disruptive, but you can trust that a specific person might be able to manage it without being disruptive.

Like if you disallow evil characters, and someone who you know to be a non-disruptive player comes to you with a strong concept for a LE character that wouldn't work nearly as well as LN, I figure you let them if you trust them.

There are some things you disallow in general just because you don't want them to be especially common, not that you don't want them to ever happen. There's also the case where you want to disallow something until you make yourself comfortable with how to handle it (e.g. new classes just came out) and sometimes you forget to follow through.

Yeah, but in the interests of fairness, it's important to indicate to players what is a 'soft ban' versus a 'hard ban.' Players need to know which things are just not happening, and even likely to annoy you by asking for, and which they just need to make a good case for.


Azullius Koujou wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
AM BARBARIAN wrote:
Azullius Koujou wrote:
(add to that the Paladin is one of the strongest martial classes if not the strongest)

AH.

HEM.

i agree bloodrager, barbarian, unchained monk, fighter(with the appropriate options)and slayer are all better martials than the paladin

Damage dealers perhaps, staying alive not so much, at least based on my experience so far.

Good ac, good saves, many immunities and lay on hands = Paladins is probably the hardest martial to take down.(at least based on what i've seen)

paladins are also mad as all hell so unless your playing a 35 point buy minimum creating a good one is a no go


I find if you need to post "Should the Paladin Fall" then no they shouldn't. Really, if that Paladin is to fall you'll know it. If there is any question then you shouldn't be punishing the paladin, maybe warning in roleplaying omen but that's it.

Paladin's get nothing for the restrictions, they are equivalent to the Ranger who has no such restrictions.

101 to 113 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / My player wants to play a Paladin! What do I do? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.