You will be fine tanking those two stats and if it is all you tank you'd likely not much feel their loss even at cap. Paladins don't have a tight TP budget really, it just seems that way because you want to train everything.

Paladins don't have a tight TP budget really, it just seems that way because you want to train everything.

---

I disagree. The only builds that allow aux skills pre-cap are the one handed shield builds, even then it's tight compared to any other class.

The OP is in the unfortunate situation of being in one of the most TP demanding builds available to paladins.

Dgry

I've made a lot of characters. A lot. I'm sure we all have. Now, if I restrict my thinking to sort of mainstream, supported builds then paladins are indeed one of the tightest to train. And I mean like: 2x armor, 1x shield, 2x weapon, 1x CM, 1x MoC, 1x spells, 2x PT, .25x lores, 1x FA, .75x HP, 2x armor. I would call something like this a 'core' paladin training. Compared to 'core' training on my sorcerer, or my warrior, the amount you have left over after this seemed quite a lot less. That being said some things are worse, like my sniper ranger.

One thing I found that really mitigated this, however, was crunching stats with a big physical weighting. I think part of the reason so many people think paladin's TPs are so tight that they can't afford anything is that their stats are maximized for cap, or partially maximized. Trust me the difference between that (I looked at both) and stats crunched for max TPs with a 2 to 1 ratio is HUGE.

Keep in mind though that you've accomplished this by moving "required" warrior skills to "auxiliary" paladin skills. Compared to the warrior, the paladin loses 1x CM, 1x PF, 1x Dodge. They won't have baseline effectiveness with the combat maneuvers they can afford, nor stamina to afford them, nor semidux to defend themselves. Their various buffs will only nullify the loss in AS and DS from the lack of training. The effectiveness of their spells at disabling is dependent on lore training, which they also won't have. I think this paladin is going to be noticeably less effective than the warrior you've presented, while paying slightly more -- which explains why most paladins end up training more combat skills than you've listed, at the cost of auxiliary skills. I don't necessarily think a change is required here, but I question the comparison you're drawing.

We could go all day and do a breakdown of every class and build but that would distract from the main point of all this I think. It is obviously true that a paladin will spend more training points per level then likely anyone else with a standard training plan. However, it is also equally obvious that there are in fact training points leftover for a paladin to train in auxiliary skills if they so choose. If you look at training point costs for some of those skills; first aid(1/1), survival(2/2), trading(0/3), pickpocketing (4/4), disarm traps(2/5), and pick locks(2/4), they don't appear to be much worse off then everyone else, except for maybe when compared to rogues.

---

I'm glad you calculated the numbers and came to this point because I've done the number crunching in the past and wasn't looking forward to going through it again.

The problem with our TP costs isn't as straightforward as comparing points and plans pound for pound. For every plan you present as baseline, someone else will present another as baseline.

To define the problem we have to divide skills into categories.

Baseline
Primary Weapon skill (ohe/ohb/thw/pole/brawl/CM)
Primary defense skills (armor/shield/dodge/PT/perception)

Power skills
Secondary weapon skills (second weapon type)
Performance enhancers (hide/ambush/twc/mo/spells/lores)

Fun skills
FA/survival/trading/stealing/picking/disarm

When GMs created paladins, they looked at the baseline skills and said, these are perfectly balanced with the other classes. Then they looked at paladin spells and said, when you add these in, paladins are still pretty evenly balanced...done.

The problem with that is that for a combat only class, our primary power skill (spells) doesn't compete with other class's power skills. It's riddled with bandaids to bridge the "gap" between our baseline skills and warrior baseline skills.

To make this easier to explain, let me start out with some scenarios - don't get too caught up on this "baseline" I'm not even adding costs in this post.
You have a ranger, paladin, bard, and warrior that all have 2x thw, 1x CM, 2x dodge, 1x PT, and 1x perception, no other skills and not factoring in CM, which one is more powerful? None, they're all equal. Neither are better or worse at killing things, none can do anything better than the others.

Now let's look at those power skills.
You have 1x'd the bard spell circle, the ranger spell circle, and the paladin spell circle. Which circle is more deadly? Which is least deadly?
If you were placing bets on the more effective killer, would you choose 2x thw, 1x CM, 2x dodge, 1x PT, and 1x perception, 1x ranger spell ranger or 1x paladin spelled paladin?
If you were placing bets on the more effective killer, would you choose 2x thw, 1x CM, 2x dodge, 1x PT, and 1x perception, 1x bard spell bard or 1x paladin spelled paladin?
If you were placing bets on the more effective killer, would you choose 2x thw, 2x CM (including cmans this time), 2x dodge, 1x PT, and 1x perception warrior or 2x CM paladin (who doesn't have spells)?
If you were placing bets on the more effective killer, would you choose a class that's 2x'd in hiding/ambush, or one that's 1x'd in MO?
Would you rather have 2x ambush or 2x CM?

Take the above scenario and add in power skills. Which is more deadly? 2x ambush, 2x spells, 2x CM, 2x MO, or 2x lores?
-I rank those in the order I listed them in terms of power.

The simple fact of the matter is this. Pre-cap paladins have 4 viable methods of increasing their effectiveness in combat which are: .75x spells, 2x CM, 1x MO, and lores. Anything after the .75x spells is very tight on TPs, and may be considered beyond the "baseline" or aiming to high. Meanwhile it's very easy for other classes to train in their power skills without feeling the pinch, because those power skills are more effective than what we have. Our spell list is mostly filler to bridge the skill gap between us and warriors, who have more skills due to lower costs. Since there's little gain to be had beyond the .75x spell training, most turn their eye towards CM as it'll give them more combat options and a higher AS which increases killing power. For the same points it costs paladins to get that 2x CM, another class would be able to double ambush or double spells. They have the options, so they get diversity, paladins get pigeonholed.

Dgry

>>And you do realize that paladins aren't warriors right? If you gave a paladin all that they'd have better AS/DS/TD then a warrior, because of their spells they wouldn't have the redux and because of costs and availability they wouldn't have as many combat maneuvers.

The paladin circle shouldn't be comprised of spells who's only purpose is to bridge the gap between them an warriors. I don't think anyone wants us to be better than warriors, but we shouldn't be second-class warriors either.

>>And in most cases paladin spells work better then any combat maneuver.

Let's test that statement.
1615 - I'd take a mastered tackle over max lored 1615 any day, baselines I'd still take tackle as 1615 only has 35% knockdown
1630 - With lores this is a nice disabler, but the new warrior aoe cmans make it seem weak
1616 - toughness can't be dispelled
I'm hard pressed to find any other spell that could be compared to a cman, the above list doesn't look favorable for your statement.

>>The difference in DS you'd see from dodge is mostly made up by spells within the paladin circle, you get +40 DS from them alone before lores, not to mention you get 15 DS from 120. The difference in stamina from 1x-2x PF we'll round up and call it 34. 5 of that is made up from the spell vigor. And the rest is nearly made up, if not completely, with the spell rejuvenation. AS there is a difference of 50 between 1x and 2x, 10 of that is made up by 1606, you gain 31.75 phantom combat maneuver ranks from 1611 at 40 paladin spell ranks, which is another 16 of that AS. There is also the +5 STR bonus you get from using your bonded weapon. So that total comes to 31 of the 50 point difference. You also receive a 10% increase in DF from 1605, and although it doesn't directly boost your AS it certainly affects how much damage and how easily you can kill things. So things aren't quite as lopsided as you are trying to make them out to be either. You'll also note I left out zealot, because while it certainly can increase your AS it also reduces your ability to defend yourself, not just because of the loss to DS but also the inability to change your stance.

My vigor adds exactly 5 points of stamina. My weapon bonding adds 5 AS, a warrior's weapon bonding adds 10, so closer to 26 of 50, not counting zealot. Yes, we receive 10% DF boost and it helps us kill things, so does berserk, mighty strike, execute, ... eh I hope you get the point. Of your list, only 1605 doesn't mimic a warrior skill directly. Yay we have a truly unique ability while warriors only have about 30 unique abilities. Go us!

Dgry

>>So, what should the paladin circle do if not bridge the gap between what a paladin is capable of in combat and what a warrior is?

My personal opinion. Think of warriors, clerics, and paladins as a triangle. You start with half the potential of a warrior, half the potential of a cleric, then shoot off away from both classes. With gemstone's paladin class they took half of both then tried to close the gap with paladin abilities. It's easy to copy something and change one aspect of it and call it new (1609 versus block mastery for example), it's harder to take two different abilities, combine them and create something completely different and unique, but that's what paladin skills/spells should be.

These are just random thoughts
A crusader strike (AS/DS resolution with cast RT and deity flares) - perfect fusion of the magical and physical realms
A soul shield (takes principles of well of life and guard/protect and creates a new ability in which the paladin changes into a noncorporal form and fuses his should to another entity) attacks to the entity are resolved with that entity's defense or the paladin's defense, whichever is higher, wounds from failed resolutions are inflicted on the paladin (subject to the paladin's semidux)

Name one random spirit ability, and one random warrior ability, pull out the core benefit from those abilities and think of a skill that may be useful for a paladin class.
For example: randomly: Uncurse and sunder shield

This is a hard one. Imbue shield - imbues a shield with divine energy strengthening it against physical and magical attacks. Attacks that would normally render a shield inoperable are redirected to the attacker with increased potency. A physical or magical attack (curse/sundershield) that would have caused the paladin to drop his shield will be redirected to the caster and overwhelm his defenses causing him to fall to the ground and lose physical and magical defenses. Imbuing a shield also allows the shield to do greater damage to out of phase creatures and non-corporal creatures by briefly forcing them into this plane of existence - particularly devastating on demons. - ok so I had to stretch it out a bit to make it worthwhile since curse and sundershield aren't that common.

These are new ideas inspired by cleric/warrior abilities without copying them.

>>I thought you received the same +2 AS bonus per rank for bonding as well as the +1 STR bonus per rank, but if I was mistaken about that you guys are once again getting screwed and it would further the gap by five more even then what you said, so only 21 is made up from paladin spells. If we plugged in 15 more paladin spells to hit the suggested .75x total you'd gain 6 more AS. Which would still leave you 23 short.

We receive the +2 cman bonus for each rank and 1 strength bonus per rank. If 1625 lived up to it's full potential with spell infusion, I wouldn't consider it a loss, I would consider it to be on par with warrior bonding. It'd still be somewhat of a copy, but it's not bridging the gap, so much as paralleling it. As far as AS goes, I realize most warriors seem themselves as trailing paladins, but I think the next couple years will show how wrong that common misconception is. I'm not overly concerned with AS, I think it's one of the paladin class's major hindrances to seeing improvements honestly. We ask to be reviewed, and most people produce a log as proof paladins are fine.

Which would you rather have, 50 AS or 2x ambush? - If you look at the majority of pre-cap rogues, rangers, and monks you'll see where most people choose to put their points.

>>As far as 1615 vs tackle goes there are pros and cons for both. The biggest upside on tackle for me being a warrior is that its a guildskill so no cman points are taken up by it. At cap about the only thing I really use it on are fetish masters though. Downside to tackle is that it is subject to open rolls and takes seven seconds of hard rt. 1615 is a spell though so you can cast it from guarded, and only have soft rt, downsides being as you mentioned the target may not always kneel and you do have spell hindrance to contend with. At least if you ward the target though they are put into rt and you are given ample time to recast it.

The RT from a cast of 1615 isn't guaranteed. There's a long standing bug that prevents it from inducing RT (see no paladin development) in certain situations so it's not reliable - actually if memory serves it doesn't induce RT if they don't kneel. I use it occasionally on fetish masters and I always have to feint first to insure they don't get casts of, 9 times out of 10 I'd have been better off feinting and casting 117 instead though.

>>So looking at each aspect of combat.
>>Defensive- DS is roughly equal, however paladins will have less redux because of spell training so in theory they should have a higher DS to compensate for it.
>>Offensive- They are short 23 AS, the question is does the 10% increase in DF make up for this lack or not? And yes I do realize in some situations you'd much rather have the AS then DF increase because an increase in DF doesn't matter if you can't land a hit. If your DS was made higher zealot could likely be used to fit these niche situations.

I'm at peace with us not matching up 100% with warriors in combat stats, we shouldn't otherwise there'd be no point in having two classes. I do believe, however, the paladins should have superior magic protection potential but I'm not sure they do at this point, total picture considered.

>>I'd have to agree that your knock down options can use some work, and I personally would have no problem if all the warrior combat maneuvers were open to paladins as well. I'd also love to see the cost of them point wise reduced across the board, but it seems like a pipe dream. I also see no reason to exclude paladins from the shield maneuvers that were largely released to warriors only. Between the point cost and the ability to only 2x in shield use paladins would be limited plenty there compared to warriors.

I was alright with not getting most of the cmans/shield skills released to warriors. However, I was concerned about the magic/physical hybrid skills that warriors obtained. Those seemed very semi-ish to me.

Dgry

There's another issue at play here I think. I'm pretty sure that anyone with even a passing interest in fantasy books, or even those who watch the occasional fantasy movie, would recognize the professions we have in GS. The archetypes GS uses are pretty standard across the board. Easily recognizable for what they are.

All except Paladins.

Partly, I believe this to be an issue with the fact there's no overall generic Paladin mold like there are for say, Wizards or Bards, Warriors, Rogues, etc. It's hard to come up with profession defining characteristics (spell or other ability) when you essentially have to come up with it all on your own without being able to have some sort of guidance.

The other part I think has to do with the staff's lack of direction. Dgry put it best in his earlier post ("Think of warriors, clerics, and paladins as a triangle. You start with half the potential of a warrior, half the potential of a cleric, then shoot off away from both classes. With gemstone's paladin class they took half of both then tried to close the gap with paladin abilities.") There was so little original development after that that Paladins are stuck bouncing between Warriors and to a lesser degree Clerics with no defined goal.

I know plenty of us have suggested various improvements to the spell list and/or other less combat-driven abilities. But even after all these years, there's nothing to point to. No theme. Nothing that screams PALADIN!!!! Rangers have Wall of Thorns, AC's, Camo, sneaky nature people. Wizards have Immolate, bolting, enchanting, magical folk. Bards are the people with magical songs for combat, info, and Sonic Disruption. Etc, etc.


As it stands right now, all Paladins are is the profession with the high AS. That's about it.

-farmer

>(Sorry, sorcerers and squares. I feel your pain.)

Err....Given your line of reasoning, which I agree with, if I were you I would be begging the sorcerer dev folks to work on the Paladin list. The sorcerer list is incredibly characterful, in my opinion the most distinctive list by a wide margin.

I agree with everything you've said here, however, having played every pure, a ranger and now a paladin. The paladin list needs work. And I don't even care that much, my paladin is just an alt. Objectively, it just lacks pizazz.

Player of Wobert

>>Err....Given your line of reasoning, which I agree with, if I were you I would be begging the sorcerer dev folks to work on the Paladin list. The sorcerer list is incredibly characterful, in my opinion the most distinctive list by a wide margin.

Actually, I think you're totally right here and I misspoke. In some ways I think sorcerers have the opposite problem of paladins -- their spells have so much character and definition that it's hard for them to get attention drawn to the mechanical defects some of them have. I don't want to say that's a better problem than paladins have because I'm sure some sorcerers might disagree! But hopefully ensorcellment addressed some of the long-term concerns with sorcerer utility, and hopefully paladins can one day get something similar.

It is amazing how two people can look at the same thing and have completely opposite opinions. I think the paladin class is brilliantly put together. The spell list is sublime in that while there are few big flashy effects the real bonuses lay in the devilish details. I see the paladin as the totally self sufficient magical tank of total destruction against all enemies. If I am wrong about thinking that whoever put together this class was a total genius, that they put a lot of thought into planning it out this way, or that it wasn't just slapped together then I'm ok with being wrong because I have enjoyed every step of the way playing this class.

Yes there are things that could be improved. Count me in on wanting to see some changes to some of the paladin flavor spells.

As for the OP, I tanked INF at 30 but somehow managed to keep INT at 60 and have not regretted it at all. I don't even mind the low trading bonus. He is fairly well off regardless.

Chad, player of a few

In fact, you might actually be the only one to have ever described the Paladin profession in such a consistently glowing and innocently unknowledgable glowing manner.

-farmer

Has it ever occurred to you that educating people might be a more positive use of your time than insulting them?

Did you tank INF?

Chad, player of a few

>What's not to like? A warrior with spells!

The fact that you resort to describing them with 1.) another class and 2.) a spell list that just about everyone thinks is terrible is pretty indicative. I am not questioning your love for you paladin, or the effectiveness of the class in combat. I'm suggesting that we are incapable of saying, "I love my paladin cause...he's a friggin' PALADIN sucka'! I will CRUSADER SMASH you! BOO YAH!!"

For example, I would never even be tempted to describe a ranger as a "rogue with spells". You get my drift? I would not have to catch myself and avoid saying it; I would simply never feel the need to say it. My ranger is a sneaky, hippie, outdoorsy dealer of shadowy death and a lover to all tiny living things!

Similar for my sorcerer. I mean, even the thought of describing him as wizard with a few warding spells is laughable as I have no doubt you agree. I mean. Jesus. He's a summoner of vile demons, a vaporizer of fools, an exploder of limbs, a DESTROYER OF WORLDS! RAHHHHH!! ........that is to say: he's a sorcerer.

Get mah drift?

Player of Wobert

>>I think the paladin class is brilliantly put together. The spell list is sublime in that while there are few big flashy effects the real bonuses lay in the devilish details. I see the paladin as the totally self sufficient magical tank of total destruction against all enemies

I would like to hear more about this. What are some especially strong points, in your perspective, especially in comparison to other spell lists? What's the advantage of not having flashy effects? What do you think stands out and makes people say "oh, cool, I want to play a paladin?"

Generally speaking, I educate all the time. Whether or not other players choose to listen is entirely up to them.

Well if that is the case, from what I have seen, your advice is a riddle wrapped with a direct insult. I get it that you are the "edgy comment guy" but I see very little of what you post as reasonably helpful.

I would like to hear more about this. What are some especially strong points, in your perspective, especially in comparison to other spell lists? What's the advantage of not having flashy effects? What do you think stands out and makes people say "oh, cool, I want to play a paladin?"

Thats not hard at all. If you like plate, casting spells, and plowing through everything in front of you, play a paladin.

Chad, player of a few

Arm of the Arkati is precisely what we're getting at Chad. No one would argue that it's a great spell and very powerful. It is devoid of character however. You could just give it to paladins as a passive effect they would never know about and it would have zero impact on the style and character of the class. From a design perspective, spells like this are very easy to design and implement because they are ultimately just a coding task and not a creative endeavor, hence my earlier assertion that the paladin base list seems thrown together at the last minute.

If you want to cast spells, wear plate and smash everything in front of you then, indeed, paladins have fulfilled your desires. Personally, I come to this game hoping for more. Smashing faces doesn't hurt though...

Player of Wobert

>Maybe playing a sorcerer or wizard or rogue or whatever you feel better encompasses what you think a profession should have is better for you than playing a class that you think is not good?

I'm not being rude and attacking you dude, I'm trying to be constructive. No need to tell me to gtfo. This is a folder for discussion and improvement. While I value your input as someone that likes paladins a lot, I don't think I've seen you qualify any of your statements of support whereas I have qualified ALL of my criticisms with some form or other of argument. If you're really happy with +10% dF, that's fine. But you are in a huuuuugge minority. Don't politely tell me to leave because I want to see more depth in the profession.

And my main is a sorcerer. My number 2 is a ranger. I would never give up either of them for my paladin. My reaction to that state of affairs isn't to ignore paladins, as you seem to want me to do. It's to make some noise and see if we can provoke some changes. On that note, I'm going to go through the list as I have time with suggestions. Here is my first.

1603 - Faith's Clarity
Criticism: This spell is a waste of a slot, and really terrible design for the following reason. Giving a self-cast only spell that drastically reduces the hindrance for a class that really only uses 1600 spells in the field is pointless. The obvious design solution to the problem this spell attempts to deal with (and thereby be useful) is to simply knock 5% off the Paladin Base hindrance numbers. It is probably the most glaringly lazy and uninteresting spell on the list from a design perspective due to its mechanical superfluousness. You could make an argument for the lore benefits and heavy armors but, let's face it: paladins are supposed to be in plate. They should not have to train in summoning to do so. Now I'm sure tons of people will spring to this spell's defense and it will never get removed. Oh well. Can lead a horse to water...

New idea:
1603 - Excommunicate
Type - Offensive
With a divinely inspired gesture of dismissal, you cast the target out from the graces of your chosen deity. After a hidden roll to determine if the target is indeed lacking in metaphysical worth (for example, good luck getting Luukos to dismiss an undead, or Imaera a cute widdo deer) the target is then visibly weakened and subject to a penalty to avoiding maneuver attacks as well as a chance to apply a further detrimental effect unique to each deity that represents the loss of their divine connection to all things.
Duration - Variable
Lores - Training in Spiritual Lore, Religion increases the power of the unique deity effect attached to this spell. I won't work out the details.
Example additional effects:

Charl - A <blank> begins to shake and you see what looks like water begin to bead on its skin until it is pouring down to the ground. The smell of salt water suffuses the air, and you nod in satisfaction as you realize Charl has revoked the fertility of the sea from this unworthy being.
Effect - Only works on the living. Target immediately develops a R1 nerve wound due to a sudden massive salt deficiency and receives an even greater penalty to avoiding CMAN attacks.
V'Tull - A <blank> suddenly becomes less aggressive as a passive countenance overtakes it. You grin inwardly as you realize that the lord V'Tull has revoked his gifts from this pathetic creature.
Effect - Only works on the living. Gives a -15 to AS and has a 50% chance of removing the targets ability (e.g. trolls) to shake off stuns and other immobilizing effects.

There should be 3rd person messaging as well. I know a spell like this would be a lot of work but...well...frankly that's the point. Any spell list needs these characterful type spells, and with paladins that means tons of Deity specific messaging.

Contribution. COnstrucive criticism. That's what these folders are for. End of story.

Player of Wobert

>>Maybe playing a sorcerer or wizard or rogue or whatever you feel better encompasses what you think a profession should have is better for you than playing a class that you think is not good?

It's hard to square posts like this with your previously expressed desire to talk productively about people's opinions about paladins. If people disagree with you, is it really necessary to tell them to stop playing the class?

Arm of the Arkati is an interesting example. It's true that it's an effect nobody else has access to, but what does it actually do? Since DF only matters when it's multiplied against the endroll margin to determine raw damage, +10% DF isn't really different from +10% to the endroll margin. ((DF * 1.1) * Margin = DF * (1.1 * Margin)) So you can think of it as kind of a phantom AS boost -- one that won't help you hit enemies, just hit them harder when you do. If you assume an endroll between 200 and 300 (less and it's less effective, more and it probably doesn't matter that much), this is very close to a spell that gives +10-20 AS, only when you're already hitting pretty hard. Not bad by any means. But unique? I'm not sure I think that's the case. Clerics can give their group +15 AS with 307, with DS included. Wizards can hand +15 AS out to strangers with Strength. There's a good argument that either of those spells will give a similar boost to martial effectiveness as 1605 does, with some fringe benefits besides.

Again, let me say, I think 1605 is a good spell and I use it all the time. I don't think a DF modifier is a bad idea. But once again this is a spell that does something useful in a way that has special limitations and that's hard to even see working, and that's difficult to share with other people, while other spells that do similar things don't have these issues. (Not to mention the original duration per cast.) It's fine to have some spells like these. Maybe paladins just have a few too many.

>>I would never even be tempted to describe a ranger as a "rogue with spells"<<

Actually, depends on your point of view and what abilities you are comparing. If you look at it from a perspective of hunting styles only, then the similarities beteeen a sniping/ambushing rogue and a sniping/ambushing Ranger are precisely that. The ranger has a similar hunting style, and has spells rather than CMans and guild skills to assist him/her. The real difference between the two professions is that the ranger also has more specialized nature driven abilities and spells added in. AC, imbue, foraging, skinning etc. all add flavor to the profession.

>>My ranger is a sneaky, hippie, outdoorsy dealer of shadowy death and a lover to all tiny living things!<<

That's actually more RP than professional basics. I could portray one of my ambushing rogues in exactly the same way.

Likewise the relationship between paladin and warrior. The warrior's main focus is on combat; available CMans and Guild skills all focus on that. OK, there are a few non combat things a warrior can do, like make sheaths, assess weapons and so on, but those are pretty minor skills; the guild skills and cmans are really all basically combat oriented. The paladin is the same; the fact that there are no guild skills to learn and the smaller number of CMans available are offset by spells designed to augment combat ability.



The bells of Hell
go ting-a-ling-a-ling
for you but not for me

>>>>What's the "real difference" between a paladin and a warrior? <<

Ok, fine; warriors can't raise the dead, or teleport a dead body back to a holy place, nor can they add an extra 50% to the blesses on a weapon.


The bells of Hell
go ting-a-ling-a-ling
for you but not for me