Why all the Paladin hate?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

701 to 750 of 961 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

I see, still less than earlier editions where it just kept levelling.


HWalsh,
Your math is not using correct form. Both Intensify and Empower modify the base value, so you get +5d6 for each, totaling to 20d6.


Daw wrote:

HWalsh,

Your math is not using correct form. Both Intensify and Empower modify the base value, so you get +5d6 for each, totaling to 20d6.

I was under the impression that it modified the final value not the base. Either way, 20d6+40+40 at that point. Still a LOT more damage.


No arguments on the excessive, just pointing out that the adjusts are always on the base. This tripped me up too.


Math is still wrong. Empower increases the equation's end result by 50%. So, it'd be 1.5(15D6+30).


Daw wrote:

HWalsh,

Your math is not using correct form. Both Intensify and Empower modify the base value, so you get +5d6 for each, totaling to 20d6.

no empower modifies the total thing by 50% so if you wana do (15d6x1.5 for 22d6 or roll 15d6 and then multiply that amount by 1.5 it equates to basically the same thing anyway)


No, it's not. For example, 1D12 and 2D6 aren't the same because the 2D6 is more likely to have an average roll, whereas 1D12 is more likely to have a lower/higher roll.


I always interpreted Empower as "roll your dice and total everything up then increase it by 50%" FWIW, not "roll 50% more dice and also multiply static things by 3/2"

Like if you're rolling 3d6 and you empower, the first way is a lot better.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I always interpreted Empower as "roll your dice and total everything up then increase it by 50%" FWIW, not "roll 50% more dice and also multiply static things by 3/2"

Like if you're rolling 3d6 and you empower, the first way is a lot better.

while multiplying the final result does technically result in a slightly higher number rolling more dice is simply more fun so its a bit of a trade of statistically doing like 1-2 less damage for getting much more enjoyment out of it


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
No, it's not. For example, 1D12 and 2D6 aren't the same because the 2D6 is more likely to have an average roll, whereas 1D12 is more likely to have a lower/higher roll.

that's not a fair comparison as you aren't using the same die size


Lady-J wrote:
Daw wrote:

HWalsh,

Your math is not using correct form. Both Intensify and Empower modify the base value, so you get +5d6 for each, totaling to 20d6.
no empower modifies the total thing by 50% so if you wana do (15d6x1.5 for 22d6 or roll 15d6 and then multiply that amount by 1.5 it equates to basically the same thing anyway)

They really aren't the same. You are only looking at the means (which still don't match) and are completely ignoring the variances.


Lady-J wrote:
Daw wrote:

HWalsh,

Your math is not using correct form. Both Intensify and Empower modify the base value, so you get +5d6 for each, totaling to 20d6.
no empower modifies the total thing by 50% so if you wana do (15d6x1.5 for 22d6 or roll 15d6 and then multiply that amount by 1.5 it equates to basically the same thing anyway)

Empower specifically states that it multiplies the variables.

The variables are the number of D6s.

(X)d6 where X is the caster level of the spell. That is a variable. The numbers rolled could be seen as a variable, so it is not an invalid argument to make, but since other things depend on the variable of X in the spell (such as +2 damage per die of damage rolled etc) then that is clearly the defined variable in the spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


(X)d6 where X is the caster level of the spell. That is a variable. The numbers rolled could be seen as a variable, so it is not an invalid argument to make, but since other things depend on the variable of X in the spell (such as +2 damage per die of damage rolled etc) then that is clearly the defined variable in the spell.

I'm all in favor of buckets of d6s if you want, but the rule is roll the dice, add the numbers and then multiply.

Empower Spell: If I use Empower Spell on a spell that has a die roll with a numerical bonus (such as cure moderate wounds), does the feat affect the numerical bonus?

Yes. For example, if you empower cure moderate wounds, the +50% from the feat applies to the 2d8 and to the level-based bonus.

What you're saying would get really weird on odd number dice. what would you do for 3d8? 4d8 and a d4?


Lady-J wrote:
while multiplying the final result does technically result in a slightly higher number rolling more dice is simply more fun so its a bit of a trade of statistically doing like 1-2 less damage for getting much more enjoyment out of it

On the other hand "summing a small number of dice and multiplying" is a lot faster than "summing a large number of dice".


Lady-J wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
No, it's not. For example, 1D12 and 2D6 aren't the same because the 2D6 is more likely to have an average roll, whereas 1D12 is more likely to have a lower/higher roll.
that's not a fair comparison as you aren't using the same die size

Okay. Take 15D6 at its maximum, then multiply it by 50%. You'll get 135.

Then, let's take 22D6. Its maximum is 132.

This means that mathematically speaking, using the former method can get you up to 3 more damage compared to the other one. That's not including static bonuses which may similarly be increased.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To get a sense of how the math works, it might help to examine a simpler comparison. Consider the probability distribution for (2d6)*150% versus that for (3d6).

----------
----------
----------

(2d6)*150%

Value___Probability
03.0______6/216
04.5_____12/216
06.0_____18/216
07.5_____24/216
09.0_____30/216
10.5_____36/216
12.0_____30/216
13.5_____24/216
15.0_____18/216
16.5_____12/216
18.0______6/216

Mean = 10.5
Variance = 13.125

----------

(3d6)

Value___Probability
03.0______1/216
04.0______3/216
05.0______6/216
06.0_____10/216
07.0_____15/216
08.0_____21/216
09.0_____25/216
10.0_____27/216
11.0_____27/216
12.0_____25/216
13.0_____21/216
14.0_____15/216
15.0_____10/216
16.0______6/216
17.0______3/216
18.0______1/216

Mean = 10.5
Variance = 8.75

----------

Although they have identical means, the distributions are clearly not the same. The first distribution has eleven categories and the second has sixteen. So some values, like 5, are possible in one case but impossible in the other. Even for outcomes that occur in both distributions, the probabilities aren't the same. For example, the probability of rolling a 3 is six times larger in the first case than it is in the second.

The different variances tell us that, overall, the first distribution is more spread out than the second. The distributions differ even more when we take into account the Pathfinder rounding rules.

----------

(2d6)*150% Including Rounding Rules

Value___Probability
03.0______6/216
04.0_____12/216
06.0_____18/216
07.0_____24/216
09.0_____30/216
10.0_____36/216
12.0_____30/216
13.0_____24/216
15.0_____18/216
16.0_____12/216
18.0______6/216

Mean = 10.25
Variance = 13.1875

----------

Now the difference between the variances is larger and the means no longer match. And things get messier if you are applying Empower to an odd number of dice or if the spell has any static modifiers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

*falls over as gisher casts sleep*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
*falls over as gisher casts sleep*

I'm a math professor. We get sleep as an SLA. ;)

But when discussing probability distributions it really is important that people understand that averages aren't the only things that need to be considered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
*falls over as gisher casts sleep*

I'm a math professor. We get sleep as an SLA. ;)

But when discussing probability distributions it really is important that people understand that averages aren't the only things that need to be considered.

Now it's an area of effect! *swoons and falls over as brain shuts off to protect itself*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Plot Twist: He's actually a Witch with the Slumber Hex, and just developed the Mass Slumber Major Hex.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

He's a professor, it has already been an area effect. He has now mastered the ability to perform it without altar (lectern) and hallowed ground (lecture hall). He is also using the forum to vastly extend his range.


Now we should discuss the applications of Euler's Theorem to…

*Takes over abandoned messageboard! Now for the entire internet!*


You should know its bad luck to resurrect paladin threads.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:

Now we should discuss the applications of Euler's Theorem to…

*Takes over abandoned messageboard! Now for the entire internet!*

By the power of φ(n) I compel you! *holds protractors in the shape of a cross* Someone raise Fermat for help! Only math will counter math!


Lady-J wrote:
still not as many dice as a blaster sorc or a vital strike build

Depends on the level. Most of them aren't getting 13 to 15 actual dice at 11th versus a single target six times a day (including multiple times per round) on their "everything including the kitchen sink" attack. An Enlarged Improved Vital Strike barbarian with an Impact butchering axe gets 18d6, but that weapon only showed up recently, and the gimmick requires some set up and works at most once per round since Vital Strike is a standard action. Otherwise, Paizo's rulings on size-stacking a few years ago scotch a lot of the fun times martials were enjoying circa 2012.

The open-ended stacking you could do in 3.0 was frightening. Double-dipping Cha bonus, my paladin/outcast had an additional +14 to hit on a Smite/Avenge, and would parlay it into a -10 full-BAB Power Attack (because those were a thing back then) for an immediate 30pts of damage gained from that feat alone before any other counting began.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
You should know its bad luck to resurrect paladin threads.

One day is hardly a resurrection, dude.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dysartes wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
You should know its bad luck to resurrect paladin threads.
One day is hardly a resurrection, dude.

I know its a paladin thread but why you got to start an argument over a innocuous comment that was (CLEARLY) meant as a joke?

(Besides hes the one who referred to it as abandoned.)

And yeah I guess he could of just used Raise dead. maybe even a decent heal check so less bad luck!


Empower spell does effect static mods to variable effects in this edition. I believe there is an FAQ about it and magic missile.

The confusion must be coming from how it didn't work that way in 3.5

As for 10d6*1.5 vs 15d6, the critical hit rules state that you roll the dice and add mods twice for an x2 critical. This seems the preferred method, but goes against how flat mods and empower spell interact.

I suspect that multiplication is the preferred method in Mathfinder, and that all indications to the contrary come from legacy rules written by devs of another edition that didn't share Paizo's views on empower spell.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
Part of the hate is because it's the only class where your class features not only tell you how to play your character, they also tell your party members how they're allowed to play theirs.

while many people do play it that way i would argue that you could

use a paladin to not only make superman but batman or spiderman also

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem with Paladins comes from the alignment requirement.

Sadistic GM's love to break Paladins.

You saved the town from the Orc hordes?

Now there are orphans at the Orc hideout. You made Orc children grow up without parents!! EVIL!! You are now a fallen Paladin, might as well trade those levels in now.

You killed the Orc kids at their base too?

Child murderer!!

You let the Orcs raze the town to avoid hurting Orcs with family?

You let Evil win the day.

You adopted the Orc kids and are teaching them the ways of Good?

You are interjecting your beliefs onto others. This is Chaotic. You should have just razed the town yourself, at least you can trade your goody-two-shoes Paladins levels in for Antipaladin if you go Evil. You are now just a crappy excuse for a Fighter.

There are also players who have trouble RPing it.

Half of them think they are Judge Dredd and put Jaywalkers to the sword, usually depopulating entire nations with executions.

The other half are the saccharine "The Demon can be redeemed! Don't kill him!" types. Remember that aligned Outsiders don't have an alignment, they literally ARE that alignment. For a Demon that isn't CE isn't a Demon.

The Exchange

If celestials can fall demons can rise!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

The problem with Paladins comes from the alignment requirement.

Sadistic GM's love to break Paladins.

You saved the town from the Orc hordes? Now there are orphans at the Orc hideout. You made Orc children grow up without parents!! EVIL!! You are now a fallen Paladin...

That's not a paladin problem. (Any good-aligned divine caster would also be subject to this GM's whims.)


Slim Jim wrote:
Quote:

The problem with Paladins comes from the alignment requirement.

Sadistic GM's love to break Paladins.

You saved the town from the Orc hordes? Now there are orphans at the Orc hideout. You made Orc children grow up without parents!! EVIL!! You are now a fallen Paladin...

That's not a paladin problem. (Any good-aligned divine caster would also be subject to this GM's whims.)

While I agree it's less a paladin problem and more a lousy GM problem, some blade does fall to the paladin side of things. Things like clerics, druids, don't have the sword of damacoles style one evil act and out like paladins which gives a far more clear cut kill condition than say a cleric. One evil act and done. That's what so many adversarial GMs latch onto rather than vagueries like "grossly violates his god's ethos"


Slim Jim wrote:
That's not a paladin problem.

It kinda is though. The alignment rules make them fall for ANY evil act, and what's evil isn't hard coded so it's up to the whims of the DM. The class actively enables those "Sadistic GM's".

This isn't the same with other "good-aligned divine caster". For instance, "grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god": that's a MUCH higher bar and isn't alignment based. A good cleric can commit an evil act as long as it doesn't violate the code 'grossly'. As long as it isn't enough to move alignment to evil, the cleric is fine.

As such, it's fairly disingenuous to equate paladin's alignment issues with other classes. Or are you really trying to equate a CG cleric of Gorum to a paladin?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
That's not a paladin problem.

It kinda is though. The alignment rules make them fall for ANY evil act, and what's evil isn't hard coded so it's up to the whims of the DM. The class actively enables those "Sadistic GM's".

This isn't the same with other "good-aligned divine caster". For instance, "grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god": that's a MUCH higher bar and isn't alignment based. A good cleric can commit an evil act as long as it doesn't violate the code 'grossly'. As long as it isn't enough to move alignment to evil, the cleric is fine.

As such, it's fairly disingenuous to equate paladin's alignment issues with other classes. Or are you really trying to equate a CG cleric of Gorum to a paladin?

If your DM has whims, and springs falling on you with no warning you have a bad dm, its solely a DM problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
graystone wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
That's not a paladin problem.

It kinda is though. The alignment rules make them fall for ANY evil act, and what's evil isn't hard coded so it's up to the whims of the DM. The class actively enables those "Sadistic GM's".

This isn't the same with other "good-aligned divine caster". For instance, "grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god": that's a MUCH higher bar and isn't alignment based. A good cleric can commit an evil act as long as it doesn't violate the code 'grossly'. As long as it isn't enough to move alignment to evil, the cleric is fine.

As such, it's fairly disingenuous to equate paladin's alignment issues with other classes. Or are you really trying to equate a CG cleric of Gorum to a paladin?

If your DM has whims, and springs falling on you with no warning you have a bad dm, its solely a DM problem.

well when you fall for doing a single evil act and there are literally dozens of evil acts adventurers do on a regular basis the problem is the paladin and not the gm if the line of they cant do evil was removed the code of conduct would be much more workable


6 people marked this as a favorite.

No, its a gm issue.

Edit: tons, i would even say the majority of tables have no problems running paladins without them falling constantly. Its only here, on forums that i've ever witnessed or even heard of the kind of s@~#ty kafkatrapping "GM's " do, much less ever seen that kind of BS blamed on the class.

Its not surprising to me that the people who cant seem to find a table where paladins work are also the "i hate all alignment" posters either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:

No, its a gm issue.

Edit: tons, i would even say the majority of tables have no problems running paladins without them falling constantly. Its only here, on forums that i've ever witnessed or even heard of the kind of s%&&ty kafkatrapping "GM's " do, much less ever seen that kind of BS blamed on the class.

Its not surprising to me that the people who cant seem to find a table where paladins work are also the "i hate all alignment" posters either.

by raw the paladin class can not function as an adventurer with the can not do and evil action line in place


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Only if your GM is trash


Ryan Freire wrote:
Only if your GM is trash

Or has a different POV: It's quite rare for two people to have the exact same POV on what is or isn't good or evil and the paladin class forces a DM to make them fall at the slightest/smallest evil from the DM's perspective even if it doesn't match what the paladin view it as.

When a class balances out it abilities with a roleplaying limitation, it's disingenuous to to blame the DM for using it. The class actively enables/encourages that kind of 'testing' of the characters morals.


graystone wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Only if your GM is trash

Or has a different POV: It's quite rare for two people to have the exact same POV on what is or isn't good or evil and the paladin class forces a DM to make them fall at the slightest/smallest evil from the DM's perspective even if it doesn't match what the paladin view it as.

When a class balances out it abilities with a roleplaying limitation, it's disingenuous to to blame the DM for using it. The class actively enables/encourages that kind of 'testing' of the characters morals.

the paladin class isn't even balanced with the code of conduct even if there was no code it wouldn't be in the top 20 most powerful classes


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
the paladin class isn't even balanced with the code of conduct even if there was no code it wouldn't be in the top 20 most powerful classes

Frankly, that's just nonsense. The only full-BAB class in the game that's as good as or better than the Paladin (with the code of conduct) is the Barbarian.

The only standard by which the Paladin is "not a top 20 class" is if we put all the 9 level casters at the top (there are 9) and all the level 6 casters under them (there are 12). But if the Paladin isn't better than the Warpriest, why do so many people consider the Warpriest not acceptable as a substitute for "paladins of any alignment"?

(Plus comparing classes in a vacuum like this is silly; you're better off with a Paladin in your group than, say, a third 9 level divine caster.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
the paladin class isn't even balanced with the code of conduct even if there was no code it wouldn't be in the top 20 most powerful classes

Frankly, that's just nonsense. The only full-BAB class in the game that's as good as or better than the Paladin (with the code of conduct) is the Barbarian.

The only standard by which the Paladin is "not a top 20 class" is if we put all the 9 level casters at the top (there are 9) and all the level 6 casters under them (there are 12). But if the Paladin isn't better than the Warpriest, why do so many people consider the Warpriest not acceptable as a substitute for "paladins of any alignment"?

(Plus comparing classes in a vacuum like this is silly; you're better off with a Paladin in your group than, say, a third 9 level divine caster.)

Pretty much this.

The Paladin Code is, in fact, a balancing point, otherwise we should make Fighters fall for not actively seeking battle (even if it's suicidal), or Rogues fall for not stealing, backstabbing, or breaking (and/or entering) somewhere they shouldn't be.

I mean, if the Paladin code isn't a relevant balancing factor, then imposing the above codes to other classes (such as the Rogues and Fighters example,) wouldn't do anything to alter their power balance, and I can assure you that, if a GM tried to impose these rules on their players, that they would up and leave that table after burning it to the ground for the level of insult and heresy that table would possess.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
the paladin class isn't even balanced with the code of conduct even if there was no code it wouldn't be in the top 20 most powerful classes

Frankly, that's just nonsense. The only full-BAB class in the game that's as good as or better than the Paladin (with the code of conduct) is the Barbarian.

The only standard by which the Paladin is "not a top 20 class" is if we put all the 9 level casters at the top (there are 9) and all the level 6 casters under them (there are 12). But if the Paladin isn't better than the Warpriest, why do so many people consider the Warpriest not acceptable as a substitute for "paladins of any alignment"?

(Plus comparing classes in a vacuum like this is silly; you're better off with a Paladin in your group than, say, a third 9 level divine caster.)

umm fighter, bloodrager, unchained monk, gunslinger, ranger with the right archetype, slayer, cavalier depending on the build, vigilante and some times a brawler are all better full bab people then a paladin, i would take a party of a cleric, an oracle and a shaman over having a paladin in the group any day


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
the paladin class isn't even balanced with the code of conduct even if there was no code it wouldn't be in the top 20 most powerful classes

Frankly, that's just nonsense. The only full-BAB class in the game that's as good as or better than the Paladin (with the code of conduct) is the Barbarian.

The only standard by which the Paladin is "not a top 20 class" is if we put all the 9 level casters at the top (there are 9) and all the level 6 casters under them (there are 12). But if the Paladin isn't better than the Warpriest, why do so many people consider the Warpriest not acceptable as a substitute for "paladins of any alignment"?

(Plus comparing classes in a vacuum like this is silly; you're better off with a Paladin in your group than, say, a third 9 level divine caster.)

umm fighter, bloodrager, unchained monk, gunslinger, ranger with the right archetype, slayer, cavalier depending on the build, vigilante and some times a brawler are all better full bab people then a paladin, i would take a party of a cleric, an oracle and a shaman over having a paladin in the group any day

A Paladin's 2nd level class feature outpaces any feature the Fighter gets in that regard. The same goes for several other Paladin features, such as their immunities to Fear, Disease, Charm, Compulsion, Poison...the list goes on. And Lay On Hands, which can basically be an almost At-Will Heal with the proper specialization, means the Paladin can fight for much longer periods of time than a Fighter ever could.

Honestly, the only reason a Fighter would be better than a Paladin would be if the Paladin is facing non-Evil creatures, which is maybe 10-15% of the time. And even then, the Paladin isn't so far behind that he's beyond useless, and the Fighter would only beat the Paladin on the offensive front. Several of the Paladin's defensive options will still apply, and therefore put the Fighter's lack of them to shame.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
the paladin class isn't even balanced with the code of conduct even if there was no code it wouldn't be in the top 20 most powerful classes
Frankly, that's just nonsense. The only full-BAB class in the game that's as good as or better than the Paladin (with the code of conduct) is the Barbarian.

And the bloodrager; at higher levels also the fighter with weapon/armor master's handbook material.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
The only standard by which the Paladin is "not a top 20 class" is if we put all the 9 level casters at the top (there are 9) and all the level 6 casters under them (there are 12).

Not unreasonable. I might drop a couple of those off, true. Does it feel noticeably better to call the paladin the 19th best class in the game?

PossibleCabbage wrote:
But if the Paladin isn't better than the Warpriest, why do so many people consider the Warpriest not acceptable as a substitute for "paladins of any alignment"?

I believe this is for non-optimising reasons. Not that I'm sure, but I wouldn't count it as evidence that the paladin is more powerful than the warpriest.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
(Plus comparing classes in a vacuum like this is silly; you're better off with a Paladin in your group than, say, a third 9 level divine caster.)

If the rest of your group is 2 full divine casters who aren't planning to indulge in melee much and a full arcane caster, say, the last thing you want is a paladin who wants to use totally different combat tactics to the other three. In this case I'd definitely call the paladin not in the top 20 - for this group.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
the paladin class isn't even balanced with the code of conduct even if there was no code it wouldn't be in the top 20 most powerful classes

Frankly, that's just nonsense. The only full-BAB class in the game that's as good as or better than the Paladin (with the code of conduct) is the Barbarian.

The only standard by which the Paladin is "not a top 20 class" is if we put all the 9 level casters at the top (there are 9) and all the level 6 casters under them (there are 12). But if the Paladin isn't better than the Warpriest, why do so many people consider the Warpriest not acceptable as a substitute for "paladins of any alignment"?

(Plus comparing classes in a vacuum like this is silly; you're better off with a Paladin in your group than, say, a third 9 level divine caster.)

umm fighter, bloodrager, unchained monk, gunslinger, ranger with the right archetype, slayer, cavalier depending on the build, vigilante and some times a brawler are all better full bab people then a paladin, i would take a party of a cleric, an oracle and a shaman over having a paladin in the group any day

A Paladin's 2nd level class feature outpaces any feature the Fighter gets in that regard. The same goes for several other Paladin features, such as their immunities to Fear, Disease, Charm, Compulsion, Poison...the list goes on. And Lay On Hands, which can basically be an almost At-Will Heal with the proper specialization, means the Paladin can fight for much longer periods of time than a Fighter ever could.

Honestly, the only reason a Fighter would be better than a Paladin would be if the Paladin is facing non-Evil creatures, which is maybe 10-15% of the time. And even then, the Paladin isn't so far behind that he's beyond useless, and the Fighter would only beat the Paladin on the offensive front. Several of the Paladin's defensive options will still apply, and therefore put the Fighter's lack of them to shame.

10-15% of the time no its more like 85-95% of the time ive had more combat encounters with good aligned things then i have with evil aligned things yes the paladin is going to do good in combat if the dm serves evil creatures to them on a silver platter but a majority of the time that's not going to be the case fighter also gets 2 times the feats so they can get their build up and running a lot sooner and gets better dpr vs everything vs a neish damage vs evil


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
10-15% of the time no its more like 85-95% of the time ive had more combat encounters with good aligned things then i have with evil aligned things yes the paladin is going to do good in combat if the dm serves evil creatures to them on a silver platter but a majority of the time that's not going to be the case

With all due respect, by my standards your games are really weird. I've been in this hobby since the 80s and I cannot tell you the last time I fought a good aligned creature; I cannot be sure it has *ever* happened to me.

I mean, if something with a good alignment is in your way, why not try to talk to it first and see if you can reach some sort of understanding or mutually beneficial arrangement? At the very least the *good* aligned individual should not want to *kill* you without a good reason you were in position to avoid.


Lady-J wrote:
10-15% of the time no its more like 85-95% of the time ive had more combat encounters with good aligned things then i have with evil aligned things yes the paladin is going to do good in combat if the dm serves evil creatures to them on a silver platter but a majority of the time that's not going to be the case

That sounds like a problem with you running Evil campaigns all the time.

Almost every time I've fought enemies, they are Evil aligned when I am Good aligned. Unless they're a random animal or vermin on the trail (which is more often than you think), chances are they were Evil when we fought them, and if they weren't, then they were either a type that is physically incapable of being Evil (such as animals or vermin), or were Good and as such, was solved by using Diplomatic measures. A Paladin with high Charisma can certainly attempt an unranked Diplomacy check and at least have a good chance of succeeding that way. I mean, Paladins in your campaigns probably have 80 billion Charisma, which is ~over 30 billion to their modifier, so I think it's possible, assuming you don't have a ~100 billion DC for adjusting attitudes.

Even when I was in an Evil Campaign, there are numerous enemies that are Evil, but at least in an Evil Campaign, I've faced several Good aligned enemies as well, and several of them were noteworthy adversaries to said Campaign.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Only if your GM is trash

Or has a different POV: It's quite rare for two people to have the exact same POV on what is or isn't good or evil and the paladin class forces a DM to make them fall at the slightest/smallest evil from the DM's perspective even if it doesn't match what the paladin view it as.

When a class balances out it abilities with a roleplaying limitation, it's disingenuous to to blame the DM for using it. The class actively enables/encourages that kind of 'testing' of the characters morals.

And if your GM kafkatraps you with the kind of interpretations discussed in this thread, or pounces on making your character fall for otherwise reasonable actions with no prior warning they're a bad gm. And you don't even seem to understand what disingenuous means so maybe don't use it in an effort to lend weight to your argument when what you seem to mean is unfair.

701 to 750 of 961 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why all the Paladin hate? All Messageboards