Topic: Paladin vs Champion

[Marc R]

It's a better choice. . .but in the end:

You are a semi with 10 base

Joe is a semi with 5 base

I am a pure with 10 base

After 4 levels, I have 4 lists, each of you have 2

After 8 levels, I have 8 lists, each of you have 4

After 12 levels, I have 10 lists (two of them doubled up to a higher leve), you have 6 lists, and joe has 5 lists (one of them doubled to a higher level.)


I will not argue that 10 choices isn't "better" than 5, but in effect "better" doesn't equate to "more powerful", due to the restraint on semis not being their number of lists, but rather the cost per rank. . .it takes 12 levels before there's any variation in result at all between 5 and 10 base, and it's arguable if having 6 lists at the first pick vs 5 lists, one of which is double purchased up to the 2nd pick is more powerful.

My point being that "Better" or "More choices" doesn't automatically equate to "More powerful" in actual results, unless the limiting factor on power is choice, which in this scenario it's not. . .the limiting factor is cost and DP scarcity.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I will not argue that 10 choices isn't "better" than 5, but in effect "better" doesn't equate to "more powerful", due to the restraint on semis not being their number of lists, but rather the cost per rank. . .it takes 12 levels before there's any variation in result at all between 5 and 10 base, and it's arguable if having 6 lists at the first pick vs 5 lists, one of which is double purchased up to the 2nd pick is more powerful.

I also mentioned (analysed?) the paladin's spells...

My point being that "Better" or "More choices" doesn't automatically equate to "More powerful" in actual results, unless the limiting factor on power is choice, which in this scenario it's not. . .the limiting factor is cost and DP scarcity.

But DP-wise, the paladin has non-spell users costs for most of his skills (meaning way lower costs than anything a pure usually has), with spells as powerful (or more) than pure caster spells (his protection spells are in par with spells from pure casters list, his dispelling spells are on par with the dispelling spells to which pure casters have access, his healing spells are on par with the healing spells of pure casters, etc.), and no necessity to develop skills in order to make full use of his spells (e.g. contrary to the warrior-mage with his many elemental bolt spells), points I've also mentioned previously.

[Marc R]

paying 5 for power point development so they never are quite able to actually cast spells like a pure. . .

Those spell lists are not actually all that powerful. (Arms Way, the most maligned, is cast this round, bonus next round, not cast and attack with the bonus at no penalty, as many people use it. . .that list is far weaker if used as is without a "tweaking") most of the other lists are either foe specific (undead-demons) useless on other foes, or other-buffing which makes everyone else more powerful, not the paladin (inspirations, all the healing lists) meaning have a dramatic effect, but mostly to the other PCs, thus making the party more powerful without being able to help themselves. (If you make everyone else in the party more powerful, without any effect on yourself, the relative result is to make yourself weaker. . .). . .vs the other semis, who generally are not narrowly forced against one type of foe, with spell lists that affect all enemies.

(Find me one person who complains that "Inspirations" makes the paladin too powerful, out of balance, overshadowing their characters. . . . it's hard to argue balance out of whack creating in game problems for an effect that jacks everyone but the paladin up a notch.)

Assumed to be purchasing lore skills like religion, undead, demons. . .unless you give that knowledge away for free.

Not wearing metal armor, and bearing a minimum of metal gear, unless you also purchase a lot of trancend armor (if it's available) at another cost.

Assumed to carry the burden of being a channeling caster, with the drawbacks and limitations of being tied to a diety/church.

Their costs are still higher than the nons. . the fighter, rogue and warrior monk make much better martial combatants. . . .before you even take into account the fact they spend off half their DP on spells, so all those costs are de facto doubled in comparrison to a non.

And again I'll say, that in play, they don't end up being that powerful, and . . .in every instance where the paladin seems to end up being a problem profession, people are playing non core, with options that are creating the issue. . .played with core rules, the paladin doesn't overperform in actual use. . .I most recently played one two years ago, and it was certainly the case that I wasn't overshadowing the other party memebers in play.

[Nders]

not cast and attack with the bonus at no penalty, as many people use it.

I think the problem here is the old turns per turn system of Rm2 where there are actually 6 turns pr turn. Thus casting a spell in the psell phase would allow it to function in the melee phase. The other problem is the activity/ round and casting spells at the same time as we attack.

On a different note I think that combat companion has done a lot to even tthe score on many of the semi spell users as you cannot use a specifik maneuver in the same round as you cast your instant spell. (pretty much all melee maneuvers take 100% action)

[Marc R]

per core rules (RM2) you could not cast and attack in the same round. . .if you used an option that allowed it. . .

But regardless, read the 1st level spell of the list in RoCo2, which all the other spells scale upward from:

1-Attack +5 (F*) Adds +5 to the melee or missile attack the caster makes the round after this spell is cast.

The bold "After" is quoted from the book, not me adding emphasis. . . regardless of if options in play allow instant spells and attacks in the same round, the spell text itself is specifically written that the effect doesn't take place until the next round. . .and goes out of it's way to bold emphasis that.

A lot of people misused that list, myself among them. . .sometimes it takes a really carefull reading to catch some things.

[Nders]

I know I just thought there was room for debate.

The thing is that it is natural for the wording to be that way when casting a spell and attacking in the same round was not possible and in the same way I think it would be natural to change the wording when you make it possible to cast spells and attack in the same round.

Other than that I agree the list is very clear on how it works

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

And again I'll say, that in play, they don't end up being that powerful, and . . .in every instance where the paladin seems to end up being a problem profession, people are playing non core, with options that are creating the issue. . .played with core rules, the paladin doesn't overperform in actual use. . .I most recently played one two years ago, and it was certainly the case that I wasn't overshadowing the other party memebers in play.

As a record, I'm talking as a GM, not a player (I don't think I ever got a Paladin PC --too many religious obligations that PCs didn't like) and from my experience with Paladin NPCs, I do think they're more powerful than most other professions. OTOH, I think you keep misunderstanding me: I never said it was a "problem profession", or should be powered down, just that it is more powerful than other professions, and should be that way. In fact, if I didn't feel it was already more powerful than most other professions, I would have tweaked it so as it becomes such because, as I explained, I consider a Paladin to be an elite profession and therefore one more powerful than others.

Anyway, it's a moot point to argue since you consider it not to be more powerful than the other professions (so, okay as it is) while I consider it more powerful (so, okay as it is)!

[Marc R]

 

I dunno, when they go out of their way to bold the word "after" I suspect they were speaking directly to you and me and shaking a finger at us.

I'm fairly certain the options for instant casting-attacking were already in play when RoCo2 came out, so it was "in the wind" so to speak, though I can't say that with absolute certainty.

That takes that one down a notch. . .with that rule in play, I only learned that list once the high level spells came into play. . .those high end versions up in the E picks are seriously crazily badarse spells. . .then again, they are E picks.

Of the lists available, I think my favorite one might be the self buffing one. . .Holy Arms I think? The strength spells came in quite handy in play, and the holy crits very nice if there were nasties (undead/demons) in play. . . .and Unpain. . . .if you had time to buff up, that list could make for lethal action, but you needed to have the PP and undisturbed time to pop them all off in a row before jumping in. (And they resemble the monk's lists quite a lot.)

[Marc R]

OLF. . .

     If you assume "balance" is a tipping point, then claiming unbalance is a judgement. . .a statement that the profession is too weak/too strong (i.e. broken). OTOH if you think balance is a vague, hard to pin down, large area where you only need to be concerned with if professions are so out of synch that they cause non-fun results, then it takes a LOT of up or down to be worthy of comment (IMO).
     It's possible we agree, and we're arguing semantics, but I suspect we actually disagree on the below point.
     I happen to agree that the Paladin is stronger than the Ranger, but that's because the Ranger as written is kinda feeble (except for certain game settings, the "as is" ranger is broken to the weak side in my view.). . .but compared to a Mage or a Fighter, I don't think the Paladin is noticably more powerful. . .we may just disagree. . . .
      If you ever want to mock up some 10th level characters and arena battle them, I'm more than willing to help out. . .I suspect you'll find the Paladin isn't signifigantly more powerful in play, but some of the other semis are indeed signifigantly underpowered, in core rules, so the comparrison might make the paladin seem stronger than they are. . .but a test run can prove it one way or the other.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

If you assume "balance" is a tipping point, then claiming unbalance is a judgement. . .a statement that the profession is too weak/too strong (i.e. broken).

But I don't claim it's "too strong"! I claim it's stronger than most other professions, which isn't the same! As for balance, I wrote in the balance thread that "there's also more to balance than raw written abilities."

At last, what I edited: I don't even understand why we're arguing since we both consider the paladin to be perfectly okay the way it is.

[Marc R]

nah, we're discussing, arguing is far less civil. . .is no problem.

I think we just disdagree on the relative strength issue, while agreeing on the balance side. . .I suspect we'll not be able to convince each other, but that's OK too.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I think we just disdagree on the relative strength issue, while agreeing on the balance side. . .I suspect we'll not be able to convince each other, but that's OK too.

OTOH, you agree that "some of the other semis are indeed signifigantly underpowered" while not agreeing that, then, the Paladin is more powerful than them, which is a mystery to me.

[Marc R]

I don't think the Paladin is more powerful "When compared to the other professions" which includes nons and pure casters . . .the paladin, as compared to a Fighter or Mage is at power level, or slightly below (the Paladin catches up around 15-20th level).

Regardless, I think the Ranger, as is, stinks in 90% of circumstances. (And combat isn't everything, but I can roleplay elequently with my rogue who's a better outdoorsman than the ranger, which seems absurd.). . .the ranger's sucking doesn't make the Paladin powerful, it just makes the ranger weak. . .again as compared to all the professions, semi, pure and nons.

Nothing wrong with the Monk, I happen to like the Bard. . .and the rest of the RM2 semis seem to get tossed into "too powerful" along with the Paladin (to which, I respectfully disagree).

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I think the Paladin is more powerful "When compared to the other professions" which includes nons and pure casters . . .the paladin, as compared to a Fighter or Mage is at power level, or slightly below (the Paladin catches up around 15-20th level).

I do consider the mage to be one of the most powerful professions out there. :p
Against the fighter? I wouldn't agree (at least, combat-wise) since a Paladin has identical secondary skill costs and profession combat bonus, with magic added!

[Marc R]

(If the paladin ends up near the middle of a ranking of professions, they're not "more powerfull" in a general sense. . .)

But a fighter, has much better primary costs, can wear armor without worrying about trancendance. . .and can spend all their DP on skills, without setting aside a big chunk for magic, making double ranking possible.

As the paladin single ranks upward, the fighter double ranks up.

As a result, the fighter will often have around twice as many hits, and double OB, in a better AT, with a metal shield and carrying multiple metal weapons, vs a Paladin of equal level. . . .the fighter's OB with their secondary or tertiary weapon is usually equal to the Paladin's primary weapon OB.

Plus, not being a channeling caster, the fighter doesn't have a god or a church bonded to them at the hip. . . in games run by me, being a channeling caster is far from a free ride, involving lots of problems from religious enemies through burdensome obligations to being subject to superiors you cannot just quit out from under. (A fighter, if disgruntled, can at least quit and run off).

I'd put them at around par power level, with the paladin perhaps lagging, until high levels, when the paladin usually pulls ahead, but at that point, roleplay/politics often trumps personal power level (assuming your character isn't killed and the game doesn't combust before you get to 15th level).

[Witchking20k]

Also in RmCoII  is the Warrior Mage.  I wonder why nobody is saying that he''s not over-powered.  He basically gets every Elemental Attack spell in the game at some point! LOL  But, I guess only being able to wear light armors effectively makes all the difference.

Ah, we are a strange tribe us rolemasterers....

[Marc R]

(All the same logic above applies to the warrior mage too  )

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

But a fighter, has much better primary costs, can wear armor without worrying about trancendance. . .and can spend all their DP on skills, without setting aside a big chunk for magic, making double ranking possible.

As the paladin single ranks upward, the fighter double ranks up.

As a result, the fighter will often have around twice as many hits, and double OB, in a better AT, with a metal shield and carrying multiple metal weapons, vs a Paladin of equal level. . . .the fighter's OB with their secondary or tertiary weapon is usually equal to the Paladin's primary weapon OB.

I may agree about the armour bit, but about the weapon OB I definitely disagree. If a Paladin doesn't have the mere 7 points, in addition to points to spend on spell lists, to spend on his primary weapon, he has a problem. You're speaking as if a semi only has points to spend on his spell lists, and that's all! I'd agree fighting semi-classes wouldn't be able to develop as much side skills (swimming, climbing, stalk/hide, etc.), or as many weapons (which matters little in a given combat because no one wanders around with 4 or more different weapons on him), but not even enough to develop 2 ranks in their primary weapon is something I don't believe. Also, double ranks in a weapon is hardly double OB: by level 5, 5 ranks would give +25+10 (due to minimal of 90 in primary stat)+15(level bonus)=50 whereas 10 ranks would give+50+10+15=+75 which is merely 1.5 more OB. By level 10, +50+10+30=+90 vs. +70+10+30=+110 which is +22%.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Also in RmCoII  is the Warrior Mage.  I wonder why nobody is saying that he''s not over-powered.  He basically gets every Elemental Attack spell in the game at some point!

But no proficiency in any of them. I mean... Main weapon = 2/7, ds = 3/6. Total cost to develop both a primary weapon + all the ds = 9 + 5x9 = 54 !
Also, he only has +2 in combat skills, which put him behind all fighting classes (including the Paladin), and +0 to ds, which makes him even less proficient in them!

And, no, the Paladin isn't in the same league since he doesn't have skills to develop in order to make full use of his spells, and has a +3 to combat skills.

[Marc R]

A paladin spending 20/lv on spells works out to 1 list/2 levels in core, spending 10/level on spells is 1 list/4 levels. . .(I'm being generous there, as 20 DP/lv = 5 ranks = 25% chance)

1 list/2 levels = 20 DP to spend on everything else, average.
1 list/4 levels = 30 DP to spend on everything else.

OK, order up, one paladin to go

one rank Body Development 2 DP
One rank in sword +2DP = 4DP
One rank in Power Point Development +4DP = 8DP (RMC makes that 5DP)
One rank in General Perception +3DP= 11DP (if you ignore perception, you die)
One rank in Trancend Armor +2DP = 13 DP (you need to start early and 1 rank every level)
One rank in MIA: Chain +2DP = 15 DP (use the 2DP chain average for ease)

So, if you intend to pick up a list pick every other level, you have 5 DP left (using the 5DP cost for PPD from RMC you'd have 4 left and not enough). . .you may purchase a 2nd rank in the weapon, and nothing else. This character can't swim, can't climb, can't ride a horse, can't do anything but walk and fight and cast.

This is assuming the GM doesn't wonder why you don't pick up any other skills, like lores relating to religion, demons, etc.

If you back it off to a list every 4 levels, then this semi can now afford a 2nd weapon rank, and afford to round themselves out just enough to not look like a poorly made random encounter. . .but now you are barely scratching out a little bit of magic ability, your Paladin isn't so powerful when they pick up list pick #2 at 7th level, and #3 at 11th level, etc.

I did just play a paladin a couple years ago, I know my numbers.