Paladin VS Druid - Dawn of Justice


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In 1975 the first supplement to D&D was published - Greyhawk - which introduced the Paladin . Shortly thereafter the grand debate about Paladins ruining everything began .

But I say it's time to give the other classes their due , because as we all know , any class can (and does) ruin a campaign , which proves once and for all that all the classes are perfectly balanced .

Number one of the ruin countdown is of course the Druid . Ugh , these guys . I thought neutrals were supposed to be quiet and retiring not shrieking lunatics . Let me get this straight , if I go into a city I'm "tainted" but it's totally cool for you to gallivant around with a dinosaur like that's normal ? Get over yourself man . And you love trees so you'll only wear armor made out of them ? That checks out .

Next up we have the Barbarian , specifically the magic-hating superstitious Barbarian . I get it you're "roleplaying" when you steal all the magic items and bury them because they're wicked but the GM isn't in on the joke . We're still going to have to fight stuff that makes sense if I had a +3 Breastplate . Which I don't . Because it's evil ? Whereas slaughtering villagers by the truckload is totally fine ?

Then of course we have the Thief , I mean rogue - specifically the cowardly rogue . So when you steal from us , hide during combat , and betray our allies that's "good character work" but when our characters get mad about it we're taking the game "too seriously" ? Take your ten foot pole and beat it pal .

Next up we have the Wizard and its ugly cousin the Sorcerer . So you need to be wrapped in bubble wrap and carried around in a protective case for the first 9 levels and then you're going to outshine everyone else ? Sounds good .

Now the lightening round ;

Cleric - Sure your god told you to do it
Ranger - Ooh , I have two weapons ! Get a job
Monk - Almost as useful as a fighter half your level , if you take the right feats
Psion - Don't even get me started

But you know what I was wrong , there's one class that never ruins things - the bard . Bards are always cool with whatever . They can't do much but they're always happy to help with what little they have to contribute . And they can use whips , because why not .

So that settles it , bard is the best class . The end .

Of course classes don't ruin campaigns , players (and GMs) do .

But then again , what is a campaign for except to ruin ?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Have all of these legitimately been a problem at your table, or is this just an exercise in catharsis?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, my main group has effectively softbans Druid, because I can't stand the restriction and nobody else wants a class with a bunch of difficult to manage but not particularly interesting features.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Old Jimmy Legs wrote:

But you know what I was wrong , there's one class that never ruins things - the bard . Bards are always cool with whatever . They can't do much but they're always happy to help with what little they have to contribute . And they can use whips , because why not .

So that settles it , bard is the best class . The end .

Not in my neck of the woods. We've never forgiven the bard for abandoning his 1st edition druidic roots!

Back then he had principles, he believed in something! Now he's just a thief who uses magic.

So they're all rotten - every single class in the game!

The end.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

*chuckles*

Druids? Quiet? Where'd you ever get an idea like that? Sounds like someone developed a stereotype about druids without ever actually meeting the wide range of druid orders. Druids embody nature and all the processes within it. Some take after certain aspects, others represent a wider range of temperaments. The raging wolverine, the rampaging wildebeast, the ill-tempered badger, the blood thirsty shark, the melodious lark, the free spirited sparrow, the razor-beaked hawk, all of these things a druid can be, and much more. We can grant life, bring death, soothe suffering, inflict wracking agony, send out plagues, and embolden the very roots of life.

Next time, seek to understand what you attempt to judge. If more folks did that, us Druids would not have to push back on your progress as often.
[/in character]

But yes, bards are the best.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeathlessOne wrote:
The raging wolverine, the rampaging wildebeast, the ill-tempered badger, the blood thirsty shark, the melodious lark, the free spirited sparrow, the razor-beaked hawk, all of these things a druid can be, and much more.

Like avalanches, earthquakes, hurricanes, flash floods, volcanic eruptions....


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Somewhere in my head, a druid's perspective version of "Handlebars" is forming.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anwar wrote:
Like avalanches, earthquakes, hurricanes, flash floods, volcanic eruptions....

Well, yes. Those too. Only the most powerful Druids risk tampering with the fundamental forces of nature in order to enact change on THAT scale. Nature grants us the power to manipulate itself in order to serve it, not become its master.

blahpers wrote:
Somewhere in my head, a druid's perspective version of "Handlebars" is forming.

*glrck*

Now my own mind seeks to consider this abomination.

......

I can cast my spells with my armor on, my armor on.

.......

Curses...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You forget. Bards had to start as druids.. and were tougher than sherman tanks...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean at first I thought it was just ranting then there was that whole part about bards being the best and I'm like "go oooon"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Have all of these legitimately been a problem at your table, or is this just an exercise in catharsis?

A bit of both


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moonclanger wrote:
Old Jimmy Legs wrote:

But you know what I was wrong , there's one class that never ruins things - the bard . Bards are always cool with whatever . They can't do much but they're always happy to help with what little they have to contribute . And they can use whips , because why not .

So that settles it , bard is the best class . The end .

Not in my neck of the woods. We've never forgiven the bard for abandoning his 1st edition druidic roots!

Back then he had principles, he believed in something! Now he's just a thief who uses magic.

So they're all rotten - every single class in the game!

The end.

That's a good point , bards are dead to me


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, hey, hey! We can't have a thread around here complaining about classes without some good ol' fighter hate! This thread is barely even meeting its martial/caster complaint quota!


What about the Shifter? It's a martial that can be compared to a caster, and it has the same unreasonable restrictions as that caster.

Of course, that means that there is no disparity here, both are useless if they can't wear metal armour.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Old Jimmy Legs wrote:

In 1975 the first supplement to D&D was published - Greyhawk - which introduced the Paladin . Shortly thereafter the grand debate about Paladins ruining everything began .

But I say it's time to give the other classes their due , because as we all know , any class can (and does) ruin a campaign , which proves once and for all that all the classes are perfectly balanced .

Number one of the ruin countdown is of course the Druid . Ugh , these guys . I thought neutrals were supposed to be quiet and retiring not shrieking lunatics . Let me get this straight , if I go into a city I'm "tainted" but it's totally cool for you to gallivant around with a dinosaur like that's normal ? Get over yourself man . And you love trees so you'll only wear armor made out of them ? That checks out .

Next up we have the Barbarian , specifically the magic-hating superstitious Barbarian . I get it you're "roleplaying" when you steal all the magic items and bury them because they're wicked but the GM isn't in on the joke . We're still going to have to fight stuff that makes sense if I had a +3 Breastplate . Which I don't . Because it's evil ? Whereas slaughtering villagers by the truckload is totally fine ?

Then of course we have the Thief , I mean rogue - specifically the cowardly rogue . So when you steal from us , hide during combat , and betray our allies that's "good character work" but when our characters get mad about it we're taking the game "too seriously" ? Take your ten foot pole and beat it pal .

Next up we have the Wizard and its ugly cousin the Sorcerer . So you need to be wrapped in bubble wrap and carried around in a protective case for the first 9 levels and then you're going to outshine everyone else ? Sounds good .

Now the lightening round ;

Cleric - Sure your god told you to do it
Ranger - Ooh , I have two weapons ! Get a job
Monk - Almost as useful as a fighter half your level , if you take the right feats
Psion - Don't even get me started

But you know...

Nothing in the Druid class says they can't go into cities. They might not want to, any more than a Paladin wouldn't want to venture into Cheliax to rest for the night, but there's nothing in their code of conduct that says "Cities are forbidden." I also imagine there are Druidic civilizations as well, so that argument for them "ruining everything" is a bunch of hooey.

Most Anti-Magic Barbarians don't play that way. They usually just get Superstition, Spell Sunder, and smash spellcasters with their Witch Hunter power. If you're coming across a Barbarian who has to destroy every magic item you come across, know that it's not the class doing it, it's the dick of a player doing it.

Rogues who are played correctly don't do that kind of stuff. If they do, they do it in such a subtle and harmless way that nobody is going to give a damn about it in the long run. They may even find it funny, depending on the situation. If they're doing it in a way that is disruptive to the table, then that's just a case of a bad player, in which case their selection of the Rogue class (and not Thief) was irrelevant to begin with.

Several spellcasters, if built correctly, are more than capable of handling themselves in most every situation from the beginning. They are more fragile, perhaps, but with proper tactics and optimization, becomes a non-issue. The latter is probably the only legitimate concern you've presented throughout your entire post, but let's be realistic here: The Caster/Martial disparity has existed since 3.X. It might have even existed before then, if we follow the definition of "Casters doing things more and better than Martials ever can," since spells such as teleportation and all that fun stuff have never been available. They weren't as disruptive or noticeable in previous editions, since they were purposefully balanced with the Caster/Martial disparity in mind. (To be fair though, the term didn't exist at that period, to my knowledge, but the fact of the matter is that the prior systems were better balanced in this case.) Also, I'm not trying to derail this into a C/MD thread, so if anyone wants to argue that any further, they better necro the most recent thread, or make another one to throw onto the already big pile, because I will not argue it any further here to keep on topic.

Clerics are a very bland class, but you have to understand that in numerous instances, classes other than Clerics do things because "their God said so" if the character in question is a truly devout believer of their deity. Just because one class makes it their main schtick doesn't mean that they're the only ones guilty of it.

They can also cast spells, have an animal companion, and wield bows (or numerous other types of combat styles with the APG). They have a job, and can be built several ways. You're just too fixated on people thinking Ranger = Certain Notable Drow who broke the game rules all the damn time because he was cool enough to do so, in which case that was a game edition issue.

Difficult to argue the Monk point here, but I would like to point out that with official supplements, Monks became useful in their own right, and Fighters are largely in the dust without splatbooks to keep them afloat in most situations, so Monks are only bad if you restrict game resources. (Same with the Fighter, but GMs are less lenient on allowing splatbooks than hardcover rulebooks.)

I've never liked or understood Psions, so I couldn't give you an answer here. They're even more silly and ridiculous than Wizards or Sorcerers since they use alternate rules that are trying to be different to accomplish the same thing, as well as confusing and require a person to basically "translate" to me what they all do. I wouldn't allow Psionics at my table simply because it'd require me to understand a whole new mechanic for a single character. (I might make a Psionic to counteract the Psionic for flavor purposes, but that's a bunch of work when I could just have a Wizard do basically the same damn thing without having to research a bunch of unorthodox rules.)

Bards can be played to be selfish jerks too with certain archetypes, so saying they're the only ones who play nice with everyone isn't always the case either. Personally, I don't see the point of such Bard characters, when the biggest thing that sets them apart is their ability to be relevant in most every party. If they're going to go the selfish route, they should be playing one of the other martials.

Soooo, yeah, this means that classes being disruptive is largely due to players and not classes. The only exceptions to this are Paladins and Full Spellcasters, the former because it has mechanics that gives people an excuse (that's not really an excuse, by the way,) to be disruptive, and the latter because they break games too damn easily. Otherwise? It's a player thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Old Jimmy Legs wrote:
In 1975 the first supplement to D&D was published - Greyhawk - which introduced the Paladin. Shortly thereafter the grand debate about Paladins ruining everything began. But I say it's time to give the other classes their due, because as we all know, any class can (and does) ruin a campaign, which proves once and for all that all the classes are perfectly balanced...

I remember when monks were introduced, and it felt like TSR was trying to hamfistedly cram Kwai Chang Caine into The Lord of the Rings.

It was horrible.

It still is, whether in AD&D, 3e or PF, monks are sub par, apparently by design... monks in 4e were fine, I like them, and I'm yet to try out the 5e version, but it looks pretty efficient, so it might not be so bad, they are not gonna break the game any day, but at least they don't seem to be crammed into the garbage character bin.


The Sideromancer wrote:

What about the Shifter? It's a martial that can be compared to a caster, and it has the same unreasonable restrictions as that caster.

Of course, that means that there is no disparity here, both are useless if they can't wear metal armour.

I think the tone of this thread is aimed at the old school classes- so none of your new fangled who-sah-what-its.

Also, shifter can do fairly well in nonmetal armor- they get 1/2 wis and a scaling +0-5 AC when in non metal armors- and there have been enough additions of weird fluff armors to give decent(-ish...) options in all three armor types- lamellar armors have weird material options that allow all three categories to have a nonmetal armor. This mechanic with armor is actually relevant to elementalist shifters (who are weirdly discouraged from shape shifting due to their main damage mechanic)


lemeres wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:

What about the Shifter? It's a martial that can be compared to a caster, and it has the same unreasonable restrictions as that caster.

Of course, that means that there is no disparity here, both are useless if they can't wear metal armour.

I think the tone of this thread is aimed at the old school classes- so none of your new fangled who-sah-what-its.

Also, shifter can do fairly well in nonmetal armor- they get 1/2 wis and a scaling +0-5 AC when in non metal armors- and there have been enough additions of weird fluff armors to give decent(-ish...) options in all three armor types- lamellar armors have weird material options that allow all three categories to have a nonmetal armor. This mechanic with armor is actually relevant to elementalist shifters (who are weirdly discouraged from shape shifting due to their main damage mechanic)

If it were that easy, it would be a cost point for dragonhide (it's not like a couple shifter options aren't already not for first level). But for me, it breaks immersion hard. I cannot take either of these classes seriously for anything other than destructive villains with little grasp on reality because to me, metals are at least as natural as plants. I can play saner antipaladins than druids. All the power in the multiverse won't make it viable if I can't fit it in my games.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
If it were that easy, it would be a cost point for dragonhide (it's not like a couple shifter options aren't already not for first level). But for me, it breaks immersion hard. I cannot take either of these classes seriously for anything other than destructive villains with little grasp on reality because to me, metals are at least as natural as plants. I can play saner antipaladins than druids. All the power in the multiverse won't make it viable if I can't fit it in my games.

Well, while there are certainly questions about how it interferes with druid magic, I can at least write off how it affects wildshape (which is the only part that really affects shifters).

In the case of wild shape, I could assume that the methods used for wild shaping differ from the spell in certain key points (since it is a supernatural effect rather than a spell)- in this case, the integration of items into the user. While small amounts can be accepted (weapons, jewelry, etc), the way that items meld into the flesh would make it difficult to have 30 pounds of steal shoved in.

I could argue it is just as difficult as shoving 30 pounds of metal into your chest in other situations.

Other BS justifications- iron is the metal that kills stars. When there is not enough hydrogen left in the core of a star in order to fuse it, the star starts to fuse the by product helium. Fusing helium doesn't produce quite as much energy as hydrogen, but it still lets the star continue. Once the helium runs out, it starts to fuse the byproducts of that fusion, and it continues down the line with heavier and heavier byproducts that give less and less return.

Iron is the break point- the star actually gets a negative net return once it starts to fuse iron. At that point, a star has DAYS left before it explodes. That is the process that leads to supernovas. A natural force- lasting for billions of years... suddenly has its life measured in days. I am sure you can BS some kind of cool justification from that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
stuff in regard to pathfinder and golarion

He's talking D&D 1E, A1, and A2. stuff was super stringent back then, like; Barbarians had to destroy a lot magic items they found until they were super high level and realized, "oh hey this makes me hit even harder;" Paladins had to kill most evil and/or chaos on sight, tithe (pay 10% of all wealth earned to the church), had a hard limit on how many magic items they could have based on the kind they were, and they couldn't do anything non-good/non-lawful or risk/lose paladinhood (which was gone forever); Cavaliers had to be haughty dicks, goody two-shoes, and total bros all at once without stopping being any of the others or lose knighthood, their horse, and all but the weapon abilities of their class; and all three of the aforementioned classes seemed stupider than retarded newborns that had been dropped on their heads, cause they had to, HAD TO, HAD TO!!! charge head long into any fight they saw happening, even if they didn't know who the other combatants were, why it was happening, or if they had the capacity to take a hit or let alone if their party was near enough to or even knew this was happening... except for the fact that Paladins can detect evil (which also, in how it worked in the Complete book of paladins, detected chaos or non-lawful good-ness overall), they'd fight whoever was less good/lawful first and then the other, unless they were both lawful good.

And yes those are all class features from AD&D 1E, if you were wondering. Be glad that at worst the Paladin has an actual conscience now. Ooooooo, Scary... We have to make a choice whether or not to kill those baby goblins, orcs, kobolds, gnolls, etc. or whether or not to allow a chaotic good person to ally with you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

... psionics is complicated? Maybe before the Expanded Psionics Handbook, but they're simpler than spellcasting by a long shot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ironically, Druid wild shape is the easiest to work around. Though either abuse of a massive loophole, a less serious loophole involving a specific archetype, or just a wand of Swift Girding, there are ways for a follower of Gorum to run with being a shapeshifter in plate. Spells are the hard part.

Sure, iron causes supernovae, but its those explosions that allow elements to be distributed to form life. If you took a hardline stance against destructive aspects of nature, I would bar a druid from using plant material. After all, the first photosynthesisers nearly wiped out all other life on earth with oxygen poisoning.

While metal is both important to me and particularly relevant (due to being restricted), I'm against any specific restrictions from the nature classes. Nature is ****ing weird. In a world without magic, we have carnivourous sponges, plants that deliberately set themselves on fire, and dozens of other WTF organisms. Magic should increase what is considered natural, not decrease it. I guess I think of SF's Oras as the real nature deity over PF's Gozreh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Following up on Sideromancer's excellent post ...

Anything that happens in concordance with the unaltered laws of physics on a particular plane of existence is, by definition, natural. So long as the closed system that is the Prime Material Plane (or whatever PF calls it) remains closed, anything that occurs is natural.

Druids should get a bug up their butts when something is added to that closed system, aka extradimensional entities, monsters, or effects. Outsiders, for example, should be on the Big Hate List.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except the ones they can summon. Like elementals and mephits.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Paladin VS Druid - Dawn of Justice All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.