Paladins and Tanks - Myth or Reality?

[Blayster]

For several years I have been thinking this over and over and over... is the paladin really meant to be a tank?

Just to inform you, I have been playing RPG for more than 15 years (PnP that is), and in my times of youth I've played the ancient AD&D, the game that, according to my experience, has introduced the concept of paladin. I can even recall a little of those times in which we had the TAC0 (which to some, is a mysterious formula, but for others is just a subtraction... fear not the negative numbers!!) and of different EXP tables for each class. I can recall those mages carrying daggers to throw at monsters because some GMs were not reasonable enough to give them any EXP point unless they had HIT THE MONSTER at least once in the battle. Dark evil times. But what I cannot recall AT ALL are the tank paladins.

In my memory, paladins were heroes, feared in every sense. They were basically Fighters who traded part of their "freedom" for "power". So, there was a list of "not-do" stuffs for paladins, which would result in losing all their "powers" if they do. This "phenomena" is better understood by those who are used with RPG systems which implement the "advantage/disadvantage" system. In this way, a Paladin would be a Fighter who got "some disadvantages" and by doing so, was allowed to grab the same "amount" of advantages.

Some would have said that paladins were "overpowered" back then, but it demands a cold-blooded heart to put that beloved 17 dice-roll in Charisma (one of the requirements for being a lvl 1 Paladin). It was much more a punishment back then, when Charisma was useful for... nothing. I would definitely say that the Paladin was "paying the price" for his extra power, and a bad role-play would simply lead in the loss of all these powers.

So, back to the point: when did the paladin turn into a tank? It was not a tank from the very start, or at least I cannot recall having seen one in those times. First time I saw a "tank-Paladin" was in an electronic RPG (don't know if I can mention names here), where he could be either DPS OR TANK. I've seen electronic RPGs in which Paladins are ARCHERS! I've seen one in which they are spear-fighting specialists (not that bad, due to the knighthood role, but still...) but perhaps the most bizarre is the Paladin which fights with a SHIELD as their MAIN WEAPON - I refuse myself to play with such a thing, even if it is good build inside the game! It is clear that no one really knows what a paladin is/should be.

What really annoys me is the fact that now, something like 95% of games (electronic or PnP RPG) treat paladins as tank, and it is very challenging (if not impossible) to work on a DPS paladin. This even worse when we are talking about PnP, where the roleplaying and the "feeling" of the char is much more important than in electronic RPG. Am I the only one with this problem? When did the paladin become a tank?

[Lleren]

From a pen and paper standpoint, Paladins where tanky even before mmo's. Plate Armor, Immune or heavily resistant to several types of bad stuff, and with a smidge of healing. That the design basis seems to be legendary knights as well, and you get what modern gamers tend to look for in a tanky type character.

I recall those magic users carrying throwing daggers or darts, so they would have something else to do if all their spells for the day where cast, and also before casting their spells sometimes.

[nivarch]

I played D&D 3 & 3.5 with a paladin guy (someone who plays only paladins or dark knights) for a long long time, and all his character were DPS.
He usually had the highest melee DPS of all our characters. He was quite sturdy at the same time (heavy armor, LoH, immunities, high save) but it has never been the way he decided to build his characters.

On the other hand in the PnP game I played, tanks were largely useless: intelligent creatures knew they should attack the guy in robe in the back, and attack of opportunities were rarely enough to stop them.

[Uska]

Been playing 37 years and have usually thought of the paladin as a tank and back before the days when they first started using the term THACO I had paladin that managed to get a mid - AC around -5 or -6 and for several levels the gm had to roll a 20 to hit me. He didnt want to ramp up the monsters to much as the next best ac was around 3 or so. Yeah it was a magic poor game anyways yes the paladin can be a tank not sure what the combat revamp has done to that yet as I havent played my paladin yet but with a paladins healing amp and ac pluses they should be a decent tank

[phillymiket]

Huh?

Maybe I played different or have a different idea of what a tank is supposed to be.

I always thought of the paladin in PnP (I played the ancient system you did) was the character that took the lead for the party in dealing with NCPs and was always on the moral high ground.

They also had that thing where they were the first in battle.
They bellow the name of their deity and 'grab the agro'.
They were always screaming 'I smite ye!' etc.

Isn't that a tank?

In fact I remember the very first time I played DDO.
I was running, of course, 'The Grotto'.
When Cellimas was screaming 'Wretched Sahuagin! Come down and fight! Are you scared of me?' I was thinking 'oh cool, a paladin' only later to realize she was a cleric.
Cellimas' role seems pretty much like how I envisioned paladins and seems pretty tanky to me.
.

[Battlehawke]

I can't remember the edition, but in an early version of Dragon Magazine, which had an in feature discussion of Paladins and its variants. The title picture was of a Paladin kneeling over a beast with its "hoard" all about holding a sword and shield looking rather noble and exhausted. I've always thought of Paladins as a S&B capable of making that last ditch effort to slay the beast.

[Blayster]

I can't remember the edition, but in an early version of Dragon Magazine, which had an in feature discussion of Paladins and its variants. The title picture was of a Paladin kneeling over a beast with its "hoard" all about holding a sword and shield looking rather noble and exhausted. I've always thought of Paladins as a S&B capable of making that last ditch effort to slay the beast.

I've read all the posts, I'm quoting this one just because it is the one I like the most. Whatever I am saying however it is due to my personal experience and point of view in what concerns the paladin role.

Of course a paladin has to be sturdy, as any front-of-battle role. That does not classify him as a tank otherwise anything in a full-plate+shield could be perceived as a tank. Paladins can heal themselves, that's true; but they can heal the others in exactly the same manner. That's much more a supportive role than tank to my eyes, even more because his heal was (and usually still is) so poor that it was just used in emergency cases! Just to highlight that in D&D 3.0 and 3.5 he was healing once a day, but smiting evil up to 5 times a day...

Back to the original version (what I call original is AD&D), the minimal requirements, other than Charisma 17, was Strength 12 and Constitution... 9. Again, in the same book, in the "Prime requisite" it says: Strength, Charisma. A Paladin with Strength above 16 gain +10% exp. I honestly doubt that the original intention of the authors was to have a "tank class", due to both the system itself and the descriptions all around the books. A tank would surely prize constitution over strength.

As I have read, many of you perceive the paladin as some sort of commander who leads the battle. However, in AD&D the paladin was one of the few (perhaps the ONLY?) classes who were NOT ALLOWED to have followers (old concept, nowadays few people remember it!) making otherwise him as some sort of soloing/loner class rather than a "commander"!

So far, the only argument I cannot refute is the fact that paladins have always had a higher save. Yes. +2, originally, and it was fixed, not based on Charisma. And I truly don't think that this is enough to justify this whole concept!

I have played myself paladins several times, always as DPS, and when I saw this whole tank thing... woa, what is that?!?! That's what I have been hammering about since always. Just wanted to know other people's opinion, since in my current social circle no one has played AD&D and/or do not remember what the original paladin was about.

In any case, I miss the good'ol days. Hopefully one day someone will come up with the DPS paladin again. That would rock.

[Battlehawke]

My friend, when I started playing D&D, It was called D&D! It came with two paper magazines & dice. The good old days were what you and your friends made of them. It sounds like you have played MMO's and RPG's for a long time. The one thing you know then is: things change. If you want to play a DPS Paladin in DDO, then you should play one. A quick way to get there:

Get yourself 3 Paladin, 3 rogue, 3 barbarian and three fighter past lives. Then, build your final version of your THF Paladin. Work towaards making yourself an Epic Shadow Sword or Antique Greataxe or whatever better weapon comes along between now and then outfit yourself with some more epic gear then work towards maxing out everything up to level 25. You may not be the best optimized DPS toon in DDO, but my friend, you will be pretty freaking good at it. Try to have fun getting there...

[Blayster]

My friend, when I started playing D&D, It was called D&D! It came with two paper magazines & dice. The good old days were what you and your friends made of them. It sounds like you have played MMO's and RPG's for a long time. The one thing you know then is: things change. If you want to play a DPS Paladin in DDO, then you should play one. A quick way to get there:

Get yourself 3 Paladin, 3 rogue, 3 barbarian and three fighter past lives. Then, build your final version of your THF Paladin. Work towaards making yourself an Epic Shadow Sword or Antique Greataxe or whatever better weapon comes along between now and then outfit yourself with some more epic gear then work towards maxing out everything up to level 25. You may not be the best optimized DPS toon in DDO, but my friend, you will be pretty freaking good at it. Try to have fun getting there...

Oh, I have not dreamed about having a maxed DPS toon, even less a paladin one! In fact my main char is a Rogue 1/Ranger 8 (going Arcane Archer + Specialist). Not really focused!

What I am yet to learn is how to get to lvl 20 "quickly" - let alone 13 times!

About the paladin in DDO, I normally enjoy my time making my own "original builds", even if they are not good. I thought that it could be cool to have a (TWF?) Epic Chimera's Fang human Paladin, who could act as Half DPS/Half Tank. I started reading the enhancements descriptions, other builds, and other people's testimonial. I even started one only "for fun". At level 9, I accepted the fact that it does not worth to insist on a DPS paladin - or at least I don't find it fun right now. Maybe I'm just missing the Chimera's Fang, or just have much to learn in DDO.

[Lleren]

Oh, I have not dreamed about having a maxed DPS toon, even less a paladin one! In fact my main char is a Rogue 1/Ranger 8 (going Arcane Archer + Specialist). Not really focused!

What I am yet to learn is how to get to lvl 20 "quickly" - let alone 13 times!

About the paladin in DDO, I normally enjoy my time making my own "original builds", even if they are not good. I thought that it could be cool to have a (TWF?) Epic Chimera's Fang human Paladin, who could act as Half DPS/Half Tank. I started reading the enhancements descriptions, other builds, and other people's testimonial. I even started one only "for fun". At level 9, I accepted the fact that it does not worth to insist on a DPS paladin - or at least I don't find it fun right now. Maybe I'm just missing the Chimera's Fang, or just have much to learn in DDO.

Some builds are late bloomers, ones focused around Epic Gear especially so. You may also have run up against the TWFing Paladin and its Multiple Attribute Dependent(MAD) ways. For a third reason, you split your focus.

Paladins being feat starved did not help you either. Try one focused on DPS before you blame the class too much. Perhaps a THF build to help limit the MADness a bit.

[Blayster]

Some builds are late bloomers, ones focused around Epic Gear especially so. You may also have run up against the TWFing Paladin and its Multiple Attribute Dependent(MAD) ways. For a third reason, you split your focus.

Paladins being feat starved did not help you either. Try one focused on DPS before you blame the class too much. Perhaps a THF build to help limit the MADness a bit.

Just to clarify, my original intention in this topic does not concern DDO's paladin, but the paladin "concept"!! It had nothing to do with DDO!

Concerning the Paladin DPS in DDO, I have been listening other player's complaint, as for instance in this topic:
http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=359394

The MAD might be a problem for most people, but I have the 16-16-14-14-8-8 tendency, so I would split the points around anyways (Intelligence and Wisdow being 8-8 in my case, Dexterity 14 with a +2 Tome, was planning a +4 Tome somewhere in the future). My feats decision would be far easier if I would be focusing in THF, but actually I was planning to start getting the tank-ish feats later on, and up to lvl 9 I got only DPS feats except for the mandatory Toughness.

Nevertheless, my problem comes from enhancements. My feeling is that many Paladin feats and enhancements focus on providing "some DPS" based on Charisma. If you aim to profit these enhancements by having high Charisma however, you will lack of Strength, thus loosing DPS. Its and egg and chicken problem, and every time I try to come up with something I think "a fighter would do the same thing... and not only against evil targets...". Divine Sacrifice is great though.

[captain1z]

My pnp wizard, back in the day, had a small sack filled with fist sized rocks. When I didnt want to or couldnt cast a spell I would reach in my sack (somatic component), grab a rock (material component), and yell "Non-Magic missile" (verbal component).


In pnp paladins are meant to be divine champions, inspirational warriors on a crusade against evil and injustice. That 17 charisma was as much a weapon as his sword. When you could walk into a town and convince the local lord that evil is afoot and you are there to root it out. When you whip his court into a frenzy and rally all of his soldier, ride off with an army to crush a necromancer hiding in a old tower.

That my friend is power, the restrictions just kept you from abusing it. Your other abilities to cure the sick and heal the injured as well as your magical horse only reinforced the fact that you are a leader worth following and made you extremely difficult to kill.

Fast forward to the computer age and paladins are still leading the way, if not the kill count. They require less support all around and are more often than not, the last man standing. If thats the case, many paladins can raise dead, making them rally leaders. A light, when all others have gone out.

Very difficult pnp class to play and just as difficult in ddo. Play Baldurs Gate and make a paladin if you wanna see what an op paladin can do.

[Blayster]

My pnp wizard, back in the day, had a small sack filled with fist sized rocks. When I didnt want to or couldnt cast a spell I would reach in my sack (somatic component), grab a rock (material component), and yell "Non-Magic missile" (verbal component).


In pnp paladins are meant to be divine champions, inspirational warriors on a crusade against evil and injustice. That 17 charisma was as much a weapon as his sword. When you could walk into a town and convince the local lord that evil is afoot and you are there to root it out. When you whip his court into a frenzy and rally all of his soldier, ride off with an army to crush a necromancer hiding in a old tower.

That my friend is power, the restrictions just kept you from abusing it. Your other abilities to cure the sick and heal the injured as well as your magical horse only reinforced the fact that you are a leader worth following and made you extremely difficult to kill.

Fast forward to the computer age and paladins are still leading the way, if not the kill count. They require less support all around and are more often than not, the last man standing. If thats the case, many paladins can raise dead, making them rally leaders. A light, when all others have gone out.

Very difficult pnp class to play and just as difficult in ddo. Play Baldurs Gate and make a paladin if you wanna see what an op paladin can do.

Oh, I envy you. You obviously had a good DM. Unfortunately, during those times, my PnP experience was such as 90% rack-and-slash and 5% tavern roleplay. The remaining 5% was about trying to convince the group to not kill the hostage, without success. Despite of the Charisma 17, the players are not always inclined to agree with that "annoying guy who wants to take the lead in everything". I have tried insistently to change that in my old group, but I think you all know what I am talking about. My solution was simply changing group (and consequently the PnP system).

All in all, I am not doubting the power of the paladin. I am just questioning his original intention, as tank, DPS, leader, et cetera.

[LordMond63]

My campaign back in the day (1980-ish) was located in Greyhawk and had a distinctly Arthurian flavor to it (having recently then read "The Noble Acts of King Arthur and His Court" by John Steinbeck).

Simply put, a Paladin in my campaign was a Knight who had taken holy vows (probably closer to Galahad than anyone else). You could be part of the landed nobility, squire to someone who was and received promotion through service, acted in an exceptionally brave manner and been raised to knighthood.....but you were not (or were no longer) a "commoner".

I also required the Paladin to declare for which god he would serve, and that might well influence his choice of weaponry, armor and such. Yes, you absolutely would see a spear-weilding Paladin now and then....or even one using a shield (as participants in tournaments, the knowledge of the proper use of a shield was necessary, if optional).

I was actually quite relieved when the Cavalier was rolled out, as it actually more fit the concept of being a knight, as not all were inclined towards good. It added some flexibility to my campaign, as not everyone in fine field plate was a "goody-goody".

As far as a Paladin being a "tank", I think it came equal parts from history and literature. During the Middle Ages, rare was the man among the lower classes that could afford to own armor more expensive that perhaps a rough leather jerkin or padded armor (AC 8 and 9 respectively for you fellow Old Schoolers). If you wanted to wear scale or chain, you pretty much had to not only be in a lord's service but fairly high up. And plate was reserved for commanders in the field. Weaponry followed a similar path. If you were to have the best in weaponry, you pretty much had to be high up in the service of a lord, prince or king. A Paladin had the best chance of being so situated.

In game terms, I always defined a "tank" as being someone who could attain and hold the attention of the mobs and absorb damage moreso than do damage. Paladins had the edge over Fighters because of their slight self-healing capability and the fact that their station in life almost always assured them of better equipment, usually on loan from their temple of liege, than the fighter possessed.

[Blayster]

My campaign back in the day (1980-ish) was located in Greyhawk and had a distinctly Arthurian flavor to it (having recently then read "The Noble Acts of King Arthur and His Court" by John Steinbeck).

Simply put, a Paladin in my campaign was a Knight who had taken holy vows (probably closer to Galahad than anyone else). You could be part of the landed nobility, squire to someone who was and received promotion through service, acted in an exceptionally brave manner and been raised to knighthood.....but you were not (or were no longer) a "commoner".

I also required the Paladin to declare for which god he would serve, and that might well influence his choice of weaponry, armor and such. Yes, you absolutely would see a spear-weilding Paladin now and then....or even one using a shield (as participants in tournaments, the knowledge of the proper use of a shield was necessary, if optional).

I was actually quite relieved when the Cavalier was rolled out, as it actually more fit the concept of being a knight, as not all were inclined towards good. It added some flexibility to my campaign, as not everyone in fine field plate was a "goody-goody".

As far as a Paladin being a "tank", I think it came equal parts from history and literature. During the Middle Ages, rare was the man among the lower classes that could afford to own armor more expensive that perhaps a rough leather jerkin or padded armor (AC 8 and 9 respectively for you fellow Old Schoolers). If you wanted to wear scale or chain, you pretty much had to not only be in a lord's service but fairly high up. And plate was reserved for commanders in the field. Weaponry followed a similar path. If you were to have the best in weaponry, you pretty much had to be high up in the service of a lord, prince or king. A Paladin had the best chance of being so situated.

In game terms, I always defined a "tank" as being someone who could attain and hold the attention of the mobs and absorb damage moreso than do damage. Paladins had the edge over Fighters because of their slight self-healing capability and the fact that their station in life almost always assured them of better equipment, usually on loan from their temple of liege, than the fighter possessed.

What you say makes sense: yes to be a "tank" one would normally wear a full plate armor, which is not normally worn by commoners. Let me remind you however that in AD&D, players were able to "attain" a certain status as they level up. I can't recall what exactly is the leader, but reading the Player's Handbook I found out that at level 9 a Fighter is a Lord, and can have a land, a castle and a small army. It wouldn't surprise me if at level 4 or 5 he would be considered a "Knight", so it wouldn't be uncommon to see a fighter in full plate.

Furthermore, I have not seen the Paladin as a "non-commoner". Actually, very often in the scenarios I've played, Paladins were close to "mounted clerics" - of course, only starting at level 4. Living inside churches or temples, pretty much acting as clerics, and not necessarily associated with knighthood (although that was almost always constant at higher levels, due to the status gain). Very often they were deeply respected... exactly as clerics. And also very often DESPISED! - exactly as clerics - depending on the audience religion!

I think that the point that full plates could be worn by Paladin but not by Fighters is not really clearly established anywhere, except for this specific scenario, no? I have to admit though that I've rarely played in a canonical scenario (usually it was something created by the DM).

[LordMond63]

What you say makes sense: yes to be a "tank" one would normally wear a full plate armor, which is not normally worn by commoners. Let me remind you however that in AD&D, players were able to "attain" a certain status as they level up. I can't recall what exactly is the leader, but reading the Player's Handbook I found out that at level 9 a Fighter is a Lord, and can have a land, a castle and a small army. It wouldn't surprise me if at level 4 or 5 he would be considered a "Knight", so it wouldn't be uncommon to see a fighter in full plate.

In truth, I always considered level 9 too low to earn that sort of reward, though level 9, in a PnP campaign, was the result of years of work, in both in-game and real world time and thus was a real achievement. So I guess you can see that I was rather torn on this one.

In my campaigns, such a reward came later- around level 15 or so. By level 4 or 5, you may well have attained a notoriety among your province and your name might be known at Court. By level 9, you were pretty well known not only in your province but in surrounding countries and were known by face and deed in may Courts, not just your own. By level 15, chances were that you had your own title, with lands and retainers.


Furthermore, I have not seen the Paladin as a "non-commoner". Actually, very often in the scenarios I've played, Paladins were close to "mounted clerics" - of course, only starting at level 4. Living inside churches or temples, pretty much acting as clerics, and not necessarily associated with knighthood (although that was almost always constant at higher levels, due to the status gain). Very often they were deeply respected... exactly as clerics. And also very often DESPISED! - exactly as clerics - depending on the audience religion!

I should have said that, regardless of his status at birth, the Paladin rose to become, in the eyes of the serfs, a non-commoner, though it was by their accomplishments that they might or might not be seen eventually as nobility.


I think that the point that full plates could be worn by Paladin but not by Fighters is not really clearly established anywhere, except for this specific scenario, no? I have to admit though that I've rarely played in a canonical scenario (usually it was something created by the DM).

2nd Edition made no such distinction: both Fighters and Paladins could wear any type of armor they could afford. It was just that, by virtue of a Paladin's status within the church, it was easier for him to obtain field plate, which was the top of the line armor in 2nd Ed., usually as a reward for services rendered to the church, whereas a fighter would have to fund it out of his own pocket (with few exceptions).

[delsoboss]

I've followed this thread a bit and i'm still at a loss in understanding some of the points of the first post.

I understood your concern lies in the "percieved" role of the paladin but i'm kind of confused by the fact that despite claiming a pnp background you seems to categorize classes with mmorpg standards.

In my pnp experience the DPS/tank/healer/nuker roles came up only after my regular pnp group started playing DDO, i find those definition too restricting to be accepted in a pnp environment.

What confuses me more is the fact that you seem very impressed (in kind of a negative way) by the existence of paladins that use something else than a sword.

I don't know what's exactly your pnp background so experience may vary but in my experience the paladin votes and status have a limited impact on his weaponry preferences and therefore on his "role" (as in DPS/tank).

It's more a matter of player preference/cultural influence if the paladin falls in the warden/protector camp or in that of the crusader/demon hunter, favoring thus a more defensive or offensive style.

To clarify (using Forgotten Realms examples just because i know the pantheon better):
A dwarven paladin of Haela Brightaxe (the Lady of the Fray, dwarven war goddess) will demolish enemies of the faith and of the dwarven race with mighty blows of her greatsword.
A dwarven paladin of Gorm Gulthyn (the Eternally Vigilant, protector of dwarven communities) will make his final stand in defense of his enclave shielding the rest of his clan with his mighty armored (and shielded) self.
A dwarven paladin of Clangeddin Silverbeard (the Father of Battle, main dwarven war deity) will charge in battle to deliver death to his enemies double wielding battle axes in the name of his god.
An elven paladin of Deep Sashelas (sea elves patron deity) will be wielding a trident in battle (yes, i said trident).
An elven paladin of Shevarash (the Night Hunter) will be an archer paladin.

Now some human examples:
Human paladins of Helm (the Watcher), of Ilmater (the Crying God) or of Kelemvor (the Lord of the Dead) fit much more easily the protector role (bastard sword in hand and probably shield in the other for Helm and Kelemvor, unarmed if it's a true follower of Ilmater).
Human paladins of Lathander (the Morninglord) or of Torm (the True) instead fit easily crusader role smashing undead skulls with his/her heavy mace (Lathander) or cutting evildoers in half with greatsword blows (Torm).

Now that i think more of it the paladin of Kelemvor in different situations can fit both roles: being a devoted of the Judge of the Damned means he's the first to know that death is a really important matter in the multiverse (not to be given lightly and likewise not to be feared and avoided at all costs).
This leads to a more conservative and defensive fighting style against human or humanoid foes (not al bandits deserve death, not al wrongs are to be punished in the most harsh way, not all soldiers in service of the evil emperor are evil and need to die), but pit him against an undead and you're sure he will just toss his shield to the side and charge straight into the fight with no fear of harm, both hands on his bastard sword's hilt, an holy hymn to Kelemvor on his lips, ready to smite the s**t out of the unliving abomination in front of him.

Where am i trying to go with this wall of text? A paladin for the sole reason of being a paladin is not a tank neither a dps, it's a paladin, a holy fighter of his faith.
What weapons he uses to smite his enemies, what approaches he uses to fight his enemies and to testify the glory of his god are totally a matter of player choice (that can be guided by cultural/racial arguments).

Restricting the paladin image to the fullplated individual wielding a gigantic sword against random enemies is a self imposed limit when talking about pnp.

Just like there can be fighters specialised in archery, mounted fighting, light armored dueling and so forth (and in the fighter case is all up to the player) there can be sword and board paladins, two weapon fighting paladins and so forth (with the player guided by lore considerations in some way).

Sorry for the wall of text and i hope i haven't gone off topic with my reply.

[Blayster]

I've followed this thread a bit and i'm still at a loss in understanding some of the points of the first post.

I understood your concern lies in the "percieved" role of the paladin but i'm kind of confused by the fact that despite claiming a pnp background you seems to categorize classes with mmorpg standards.

Perhaps the reason is two-folded:
1- Because I am talking about both here, not PnP or Electronic exclusively. And by electronic I mean both MMO and single player.
2 - I have rarely seen a "tank" in PnP, and whenever I'm talking about this role, I have to appeal to Electronic. Actually, I think the first time I saw a "tank" was in MMO. As someone else pointed out, in PnP we have loads of magic, smart creatures, short-term tatics and etc, in a way that a defensive-focused char is nearly useless except for some few exceptional situations. That is my PnP experience to be honest. We had melees (mixture of DPS and "tank") and caster (divine or arcane).

Just to inform you all, I've played AD&D for some years until the aforementioned problem with the group (two times), to then move to a GURPS group, a system with high lethality (a char with 1/5 of your total number of points could not rarely cause permanent damage - like loss of limbs - or even kill you). It is a system in which you do not simply "get aggro" as MMO players are used to, and during the past 10 years I'm having problems trying to convince new players that PnP is not MMO. It is a different world, completely.



In my pnp experience the DPS/tank/healer/nuker roles came up only after my regular pnp group started playing DDO, i find those definition too restricting to be accepted in a pnp environment.

What confuses me more is the fact that you seem very impressed (in kind of a negative way) by the existence of paladins that use something else than a sword.

I don't know what's exactly your pnp background so experience may vary but in my experience the paladin votes and status have a limited impact on his weaponry preferences and therefore on his "role" (as in DPS/tank).

It's more a matter of player preference/cultural influence if the paladin falls in the warden/protector camp or in that of the crusader/demon hunter, favoring thus a more defensive or offensive style.
Your impression truly, except for the archer: it doesn't match the honoured background of the paladin (So I shall punish you for your vile deeds... from here, very very far away, where you cannot hit me! FOR THE FLAME!-really?).

Shields are a weapon as good as a frying pan (actually worse, since the handle provides extra momentum for the swing...), so I don't think anyone should be hitting around with it. My opinion though.

Have in mind that in AD&D the paladin would get special abilities if he would have a HOLY AVENGER (longsword). Not a holy spear or a holy mace. A sword. You would normally want to have that when the level comes, although there are exceptions. That is why normally we imagine the paladin as that holy warrior wielding a sword.


To clarify (using Forgotten Realms examples just because i know the pantheon better):
A dwarven paladin of Haela Brightaxe (the Lady of the Fray, dwarven war goddess) will demolish enemies of the faith and of the dwarven race with mighty blows of her greatsword.
A dwarven paladin of Gorm Gulthyn (the Eternally Vigilant, protector of dwarven communities) will make his final stand in defense of his enclave shielding the rest of his clan with his mighty armored (and shielded) self.
A dwarven paladin of Clangeddin Silverbeard (the Father of Battle, main dwarven war deity) will charge in battle to deliver death to his enemies double wielding battle axes in the name of his god.
An elven paladin of Deep Sashelas (sea elves patron deity) will be wielding a trident in battle (yes, i said trident).
An elven paladin of Shevarash (the Night Hunter) will be an archer paladin.

Now some human examples:
Human paladins of Helm (the Watcher), of Ilmater (the Crying God) or of Kelemvor (the Lord of the Dead) fit much more easily the protector role (bastard sword in hand and probably shield in the other for Helm and Kelemvor, unarmed if it's a true follower of Ilmater).
Human paladins of Lathander (the Morninglord) or of Torm (the True) instead fit easily crusader role smashing undead skulls with his/her heavy mace (Lathander) or cutting evildoers in half with greatsword blows (Torm).

Now that i think more of it the paladin of Kelemvor in different situations can fit both roles: being a devoted of the Judge of the Damned means he's the first to know that death is a really important matter in the multiverse (not to be given lightly and likewise not to be feared and avoided at all costs).
This leads to a more conservative and defensive fighting style against human or humanoid foes (not al bandits deserve death, not al wrongs are to be punished in the most harsh way, not all soldiers in service of the evil emperor are evil and need to die), but pit him against an undead and you're sure he will just toss his shield to the side and charge straight into the fight with no fear of harm, both hands on his bastard sword's hilt, an holy hymn to Kelemvor on his lips, ready to smite the s**t out of the unliving abomination in front of him.

So that's why: I'm talking about AD&D, not D&D 3.0/3.5 - and in AD&D, only humans can be paladin. In D&D 3.0 things changed drastically. For instance, in D&D 3.0 they aimed to balance the paladin with the other classes (he was obviously more powerful in AD&D, but harder to play with and much more strict). What you see in D&D 3+ is already an "update" of what I have been calling "original paladin".


Where am i trying to go with this wall of text? A paladin for the sole reason of being a paladin is not a tank neither a dps, it's a paladin, a holy fighter of his faith.
What weapons he uses to smite his enemies, what approaches he uses to fight his enemies and to testify the glory of his god are totally a matter of player choice (that can be guided by cultural/racial arguments).

Restricting the paladin image to the fullplated individual wielding a gigantic sword against random enemies is a self imposed limit when talking about pnp.

Just like there can be fighters specialised in archery, mounted fighting, light armored dueling and so forth (and in the fighter case is all up to the player) there can be sword and board paladins, two weapon fighting paladins and so forth (with the player guided by lore considerations in some way).

Sorry for the wall of text and i hope i haven't gone off topic with my reply.
Well, all in all we both agree with the same things.

[delsoboss]

snip

So you're basing your paladin view on the AD&D ruleset, but then you're talking about both pnp and electronic games ... i'm still a bit confused.

However, talking about AD&D i don't remember the rules off-hand but i remember an electronic example that may be helpfull to this discussion: in Baldur's Gate 2 you encounter a NPC, Mazzy Fentan, a female lawfull good halfling fighter devoted to Arvoreen that fought with two weapons wearing light armors, in a lot of the game dialogues and even in her description/background (can't remember exactly what part of the character sheet) she was said to be the "halfling equivalent of a paladin". That for me was a "punch" at the ruleset that prevented non-humans to be paladins, so they built an NPC that acted like a paladin (without the rules backing her claims) to show that the concept of paladin was transcending weapon usage/healing capabilities.

Now, about the weaponry discussion, two points:
1 - So the paladin archer is not honorable because he doesn't charge headfirst into fights? Are you one of those that thinks that having lawfull good as an alignment automatically sets your intelligence score to 3-5? Followers of Shevarash stalks the woods fighting whatever they find that endangers elven communities, the list is big and it includes chromatic dragons, Malarite cultists (Malar being the god of beasts and savagery) and drow raiding parties, whatever a paladin can do to fulfill his duty he will do, if it includes ambushing the drow party and killing the priestess and the commander firing from the treetops he will do it.
It's not like he does it for recognition, he does it because that's what his duty is, the recognition comes afterwards.
2 - Ah the Holy Avenger, yes it's a longsword, not a greatsword nor a bastard (or one-hand-and-a-half) sword, what's your paladin wielding in the other hand to be more "paladinish"? Three things come to my mind and are almost equally acceptable: a shield, a holy symbol just for show or nothing.
I still don't understand what shields have done to you that you hate them so much (joking here).

We all agree the iconic paladin is the sword-bearing one, but you seem to think that only with both hands on his sword the paladin is honorable, while i think that since sword and board was the most common medieval fighting style (and practical too, spears were almost useless when dismounted and not in formation and twohanded weapons were barbaric weapons or used to break spear formations, medieval knights had a one handed weapon of choice and a shield with them) for knights (that are the historical figures that inspired the paladin class) a sword and board paladin is perfectly acceptable and even more common.

Since this discussion is about interpretation and perception i can agree to disagree with you here, we don't need to start a war over this.

[Lleren]

There does seem to be a bit of shield hatred here. While ADnD has never given them the credit they deserve, they are such a usefull tool in the arsenal that we still use them today.

[Blayster]

Since this discussion is about interpretation and perception i can agree to disagree with you here, we don't need to start a war over this.

First of all, I don't like the way you write, you seem to try to put words in my mouth that I have never said.

I have never said, for instance, that paladins should not bear a shield. If you implied that from any of my posts, please, go back and read again as you have surely misunderstood. In fact the "classical paladin" image (as someone else mentioned in this thread) is the guy with a sword and a shield. What I mentioned was those guys fighting, hitting with the shield, as their main weapon.

Concerning the archers, I am TELLING you that an archer is not honorable. If you want to find a scenario in which they can be, feel free to play in it. As a rule of the thumb, a fight must be done in equality - an honored warrior/paladin/monk/watever, would drop their weapons (if any) to carry on an honored fight against a bare handed oponent. Now, have in mind that a fight against a dragon, an aberration, and some other creatures is never "honorable", it is just a fight, the only honor being the goal of the fight.

In any case, a paladin who specialized (only in) archery would be unable to carry on an honorable fight, or lose it miserably whenever he faces a decent adversary. I could spend some hours trying to "prove that to you" but again I'm out of this "proving" phase. I could give references from GURPS which I know by heart, though.

For your information, I truly think that Lawful Good alignement is by far the most challenging alignement to play, and to play it CORRECTLY demands a noticeable ammount of inteligence - on the contrary of what you suggested that I think. Spearhead in the middle of the enemies screaming the name of your god may be as honorable as fatal - and dumb. To do it PROPERLY it demands tatics, organization, observation of the environment, and very often team work. Poisoning the enemies water supply makes your life very easy, doesn't it? Breaking throught their accampment during the night and capturing the leader with a clever plan, that's the beauty the Lawful Good.



There does seem to be a bit of shield hatred here. While ADnD has never given them the credit they deserve, they are such a usefull tool in the arsenal that we still use them today.
I will kindly ask you also to please read again the part in which you believe I have said such a thing. What I really meant are characters HITTING with shields, not bearing them.

[Uska]

First of all, I don't like the way you write, you seem to try to put words in my mouth that I have never said.

I have never said, for instance, that paladins should not bear a shield. If you implied that from any of my posts, please, go back and read again as you have surely misunderstood. In fact the "classical paladin" image (as someone else mentioned in this thread) is the guy with a sword and a shield. What I mentioned was those guys fighting, hitting with the shield, as their main weapon.

Concerning the archers, I am TELLING you that an archer is not honorable. If you want to find a scenario in which they can be, feel free to play in it. As a rule of the thumb, a fight must be done in equality - an honored warrior/paladin/monk/watever, would drop their weapons (if any) to carry on an honored fight against a bare handed oponent. Now, have in mind that a fight against a dragon, an aberration, and some other creatures is never "honorable", it is just a fight, the only honor being the goal of the fight.

In any case, a paladin who specialized (only in) archery would be unable to carry on an honorable fight, or lose it miserably whenever he faces a decent adversary. I could spend some hours trying to "prove that to you" but again I'm out of this "proving" phase. I could give references from GURPS which I know by heart, though.

For your information, I truly think that Lawful Good alignement is by far the most challenging alignement to play, and to play it CORRECTLY demands a noticeable ammount of inteligence - on the contrary of what you suggested that I think. Spearhead in the middle of the enemies screaming the name of your god may be as honorable as fatal - and dumb. To do it PROPERLY it demands tatics, organization, observation of the environment, and very often team work. Poisoning the enemies water supply makes your life very easy, doesn't it? Breaking throught their accampment during the night and capturing the leader with a clever plan, that's the beauty the Lawful Good.



I will kindly ask you also to please read again the part in which you believe I have said such a thing. What I really meant are characters HITTING with shields, not bearing them.

Correct me if I am wrong but we dont play gurps here do we:rolleyes:

[delsoboss]

First of all, I don't like the way you write, you seem to try to put words in my mouth that I have never said.

First of all, if you don't want to be misunderstood be more clear in what you write or don't go saying others put things in your mouth.


I have never said, for instance, that paladins should not bear a shield. If you implied that from any of my posts, please, go back and read again as you have surely misunderstood. In fact the "classical paladin" image (as someone else mentioned in this thread) is the guy with a sword and a shield. What I mentioned was those guys fighting, hitting with the shield, as their main weapon.

Like here, now you've clarified the shield point.
In your first post you just wrote fighting with a shield, to be more precise " ... the most bizarre is the Paladin which fights with a SHIELD ... ", now, for your information, anything (paladin/fighter/goblin/fuzzybunny) wielding a shield in a fight is "fighting with a shield", so the misinterpretation sparked from the fact you didn' write the last part of you quote above: "as their main weapon".

Without that last part and with you not claryfying it anywhere else before now it seemed to me that the idea of wielding a shield in a fight was bizarre for you, that's what confused me.

Now, with your clarification i agree with you, a paladin that uses a shield as a main weapon is indeed bizarre.


Concerning the archers, I am TELLING you that an archer is not honorable. If you want to find a scenario in which they can be, feel free to play in it. As a rule of the thumb, a fight must be done in equality - an honored warrior/paladin/monk/watever, would drop their weapons (if any) to carry on an honored fight against a bare handed oponent. Now, have in mind that a fight against a dragon, an aberration, and some other creatures is never "honorable", it is just a fight, the only honor being the goal of the fight.

Again, in your first post you sounded pretty impressed by the existence of paladin archers, i provided an example of a perfectly acceptable lore-wise paladin archer. I never implied the fact that all archers were paladins nor that paladin archers are common.


For your information, I truly think that Lawful Good alignement is by far the most challenging alignement to play, and to play it CORRECTLY demands a noticeable ammount of inteligence - on the contrary of what you suggested that I think. Spearhead in the middle of the enemies screaming the name of your god may be as honorable as fatal - and dumb. To do it PROPERLY it demands tatics, organization, observation of the environment, and very often team work. Poisoning the enemies water supply makes your life very easy, doesn't it? Breaking throught their accampment during the night and capturing the leader with a clever plan, that's the beauty the Lawful Good.

And this point is were all the confusion cropped up.
Between your seeming apparent (and now proved inexistent, thanks to your clarification) avversion to shield usage, the fact that this discussion should be about DPS or Tanky paladins, and your seeming apparent (still not disproven but i shall say seeming apparent so you don't take offense) distaste for non swordy paladins (meaning that you seem to accept the usage of various weaponry but find it funny/bizarre) i got the impression that your point was something like "a paladin is a big armored guy with a big sword playing the dps role".
This, aside from the armored part, is the description of a barbarian, not a paladin, that's why i have gone through lenghts to present paladins as "defenders" or unconventional paladins that relied on tactics other than "run in hack and smash".

As you can see, my post is full of "i got the impression", "i think you mean", "this seems that", because aside from capitalizing a few words you aren't making many efforts to be clear (except in this last post i'm quoting).

The whole shield discussion was a big misunderstanding, i hope i've made myself clear on the archer/cleverness side of things.

Can i ask you to rephrase your first post concerns about the percieved paladin role?

If it helps you can "name names" (as in you can make examples based on non-ddo, non-d&d games electronic or pnp to clarify your points), since we are in the off-topic chat.

And as long as you don't try to actively advertise other games you can name them as shown by the dozens of Skyrim, SWTOR and Diablo threads in this section.

[Blayster]

The whole shield discussion was a big misunderstanding, i hope i've made myself clear on the archer/cleverness side of things.

Can i ask you to rephrase your first post concerns about the percieved paladin role?

Now that you mention, I see you were right. I apologise. I thought that since I was talking about the main weapon of the paladin most of the paragraph, it would be clear that "fighting" implies "...as main weapon". I will update it though.

All in all I don't dislike non-sword paladins, I only dislike pure-tank paladins - that guy with STR 10 and Constitution 18, or any equivalent in any system/game - and I believe that long-ranged based paladins are a highly twisted version of the paladin concept, having as a base the paladin from AD&D - that's all, that's my belief.

I am *almost* sure about a misconception around the concept of paladin where he turned from a holy warrior to be a holy KNIGHT. Oh well, that makes a world of difference, since knights lead towards tank-ness much more than a regular footsoldier. At this point I am almost convinced that it was inevitable though. That drawn of a knight with a funny moustache right in the paladin section (in one of my editions of AD&D book), the examples of paladins as being "Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad" and the magic war horse...


Correct me if I am wrong but we dont play gurps here do we:rolleyes:

If it helps you can "name names" (as in you can make examples based on non-ddo, non-d&d games electronic or pnp to clarify your points), since we are in the off-topic chat.

[delsoboss]

I am *almost* sure about a misconception around the concept of paladin where he turned from a holy warrior to be a holy KNIGHT. Oh well, that makes a world of difference, since knights lead towards tank-ness much more than a regular footsoldier. At this point I am almost convinced that it was inevitable though. That drawn of a knight with a funny moustache right in the paladin section (in one of my editions of AD&D book), the examples of paladins as being "Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad" and the magic war horse...

That's a good point.

My memory it's a bit foggy about AD&D but maybe the "turn" was at the same time with the whole "devils/demons can't be named in a game" debacle.

Who knows, maybe they thought that to be absolutely on the safe side with religious orders and fanatics they needed to get rid both of devils/demons and of unspecified holy warriors bashing skulls for their beliefs (every religion claims its skull bashers were right and the others were wrong), so they sneaked in the romantic idea of the full plated knight basking in the glory of his awesomesauce like those of the tales of the past.

The playerbase did the rest by going heavy armor + heals = survivability --> Let the paladin tanks era commence!

[bigolbear]

origins of paladins.

The word paladin is arabic or aramaec in origin. it loosly means holy warrior, or honoured warrior.

other than that basis - ie a warrior that has faith and honour, all the rest is up to the gm/storyteller/game company.

paladin as a class in d&d has always related to knights and templars, the concept of a heavily armoured and armed warrior that devotes himself to a code and posibly a religion - and through that devotion gains a measure of personal ability and posibly divine magic.

Theres nothign stopping you in d&d and DDO from making a paldin (honoured warrior) that uses a big sword as opposed to sword and sheild, like wise there nothing stopping ytou from making one that uses a bow. The choice is up to you. The only archetypal paladin feature DDO doesnt have is mounts and squires.

I know what your saying about having to put that 17charisma roll in in pen and paper, but the same does sorta hold true in 3.5 pen and papaer and of course ddo. Unlike a fighter who only has to invest in con, str and posibly int a paladin has to invest in str, con, int, wis and charisma if they want their paladin abilites to work.

I have to say that other than rank, a typical peasant would not know the difference between a paladin and a lawful good fighter who happens to go to church on a regular basis.

[arminius]

I think the confusion is not with the concept of paladin but with the concepts involved in computer games.

A paladin was always a "tank" in a PnP sense, because he or she was out there fighting and was often in heavy armor and they are not reliant on (or actively shun) stealth, duplicity, etc. Some DMs would even forbid their paladin players from using ranged weapons at all. For my paladins the 2nd weapon proficiency was always dagger, solely for RP reasons, because it forced you in close. You only kill if it is just, and if you can't look into their eyes as the lights go out, and still be able to live with yourself, then it wasn't just.

The PnP "tank" was a tank by virtue of being in front, and blocking access to the squishier people to the rear. This is one reason why enemy spellcasters are 100 times more dangerous in PnP than in an MMO, with all kinds of "counter-battery" actions available like Silence 15 Foot Radius, etc.

But computer games introduced the concept of "aggro," which was quickly followed by meta gaming concepts like aggro management. This redefined a "tank" into something else entirely--an aggro magnet who was capable of withstanding the aggro they pulled in, taking damage away from other players, no matter where they were standing.

And apparently since the paladin doesn't have the strength of the barbarian or the feats of the fighter, that left them being the only heavy armor dude left to fill the role of "tank," so they got stuck with it by default. This got filled in and justified after the fact by making tanky things like intimidate based on charisma, which isn't a natural fit--"hey there's Jamie Lannister, he is a dashing handsome leader of men, he intimidates me more than that mountain of muscle 10 ft to his right, or the guy 10 ft to his left spewing fireballs and cutting down my men by the dozen"--yeah, no.

[LordMond63]

That's a good point.

My memory it's a bit foggy about AD&D but maybe the "turn" was at the same time with the whole "devils/demons can't be named in a game" debacle.

That must have happened after I quit playing. I sure don't remember that.


Who knows, maybe they thought that to be absolutely on the safe side with religious orders and fanatics they needed to get rid both of devils/demons and of unspecified holy warriors bashing skulls for their beliefs (every religion claims its skull bashers were right and the others were wrong), so they sneaked in the romantic idea of the full plated knight basking in the glory of his awesomesauce like those of the tales of the past.

That exact scenario led me into creating a holy/unholy/don't care order for each alignment. For the sake of expediency, I basically did a cut-and-paste from the L/G Paladin to the other alignment's equivalents- like a L/N Knight would get the full save bonuses and other alignment-related abilities when fighting something that was C/N and partial bonuses for other chaotic alignments. It did seem rather unfair that only the Goody Good deities had warriors dedicated to their cause, so I did my best to adapt.


The playerbase did the rest by going heavy armor + heals = survivability --> Let the paladin tanks era commence!

Absolutely true. It made sense because the game mechanics pretty much dictated that players equate heavy armor with survivibility.

[LordPiglet]

Oh, I envy you. You obviously had a good DM. Unfortunately, during those times, my PnP experience was such as 90% rack-and-slash and 5% tavern roleplay. The remaining 5% was about trying to convince the group to not kill the hostage, without success. Despite of the Charisma 17, the players are not always inclined to agree with that "annoying guy who wants to take the lead in everything". I have tried insistently to change that in my old group, but I think you all know what I am talking about. My solution was simply changing group (and consequently the PnP system).

All in all, I am not doubting the power of the paladin. I am just questioning his original intention, as tank, DPS, leader, et cetera.

Playing a paladin in PnP was as much about the player as the character that was rolled up. If you can't manipulate your party or are only half hearted about being "lawful stupid" then that's what happens.

As far as being a "tank" being someone who can stand in the midst of battle and take out a ton of punishment, yes, that's part of what a paladin has always been, atleast imho.

[Enoach]

I have always seen a Paladin as a Knight with purpose, generally raised in a religious environment usually in the employ of the temple. As an emissary (that carried a point) or as a protector (usually to further Religious orders purpose) or as a Strong Arm for his religious order. Very much military in structure of his personal being and sense of duty. As it is his self control and awareness that drives his fortitude.

Raised in this kind of environment he is well learned in both the art of diplomacy as well as weaponry. Usually limited to the weapons of the religious order - be that a long sword, heavy mace or whatever. Also a skilled horseman and skilled using a lance. In fact I remember one of the skills of a paladin is that he could get more out of a mount than any other class and had bonuses to horsemanship.

Its hard for me to not imagine a paladin in full plate carrying a shield in one hand and a weapon in the other, refusing to back down even under nearly impossible odds because of duty, honor and pride.