Considering Paladin and Ranger Caster Level

[Thief Of Navarre]

Durin, I'd go one step farther and say that if you want a higher caster level play a full caster. If you want to play a paladin who has a lot of magic at his fingertips play a Lawful Good cleric. If you want to play a ranger who has lots of neat spells play a Druid or a Spirit Shaman.

With the right feat selection you can accomplish something that's close to what a paladin or ranger would be. Heck, with the right feat selection you could play a cleric that acts like a ranger if you wanted to.

Its a good idea; playing a class as a different one. if anyone remembers the Thug base class it was exactly that: you got D6 sneak dice instead of fighters bonus feats and still got a healthy AB and HD.

[Kaeldorn]

Durin, I'd go one step farther and say that if you want a higher caster level play a full caster. If you want to play a paladin who has a lot of magic at his fingertips play a Lawful Good cleric. If you want to play a ranger who has lots of neat spells play a Druid or a Spirit Shaman.

With the right feat selection you can accomplish something that's close to what a paladin or ranger would be. Heck, with the right feat selection you could play a cleric that acts like a ranger if you wanted to.

The funny thing is that - besides the flavor stuff like favored enemies and smite evil - you're very likely to be better off in terms of raw power. It's the flavor stuff that makes the classes interesting from an RP perspective, though.

[TamurtheLame]

I play a ranger exclusively and have no problem with the buffs and durations. Yes, some of the durations suck, but I usually kill anything at range before they even get close and when my buffs do wear off, I can always run or hide behind the fully buffed cleric until they dispatch them.

[GodBeastX]

Part of the balance issues with Paladins in most PW's vs standard P&P is the lack of Holy Avengers. Let's be real, once you stick that in a paladin's hands, BLAMMO to anything that likes to buff or evil outsiders.

Also, it's about situational effectivity too, paladins eat up evil outsiders and undead, while rogues each up wizards, and all sorts of fun mess.

I don't think something like half-spell gains should ever be changed without overwhelming reason, because D&D is a well-played system with balances taken into account that need careful consideration and simply changing them to make a couple powers better isn't my idea of a good idea. Maybe each spell can be considered, but changing a whole class mechanic like that is bad news in my book.

[Zoberraz]

Do note, though, that any Paladin or Ranger that picks up Practiced Spellcaster is probably interested in investing into their spellcasting capabilities - even if it is a secondary feature. The feat is actually an amazing investment around level 9, seeing it effectively doubles the duration and the effective caster level - like Extend Spell, but better and you don't need to use a spell slot one level higher.

I'd be much more interested in seeing the ranger get more spells from the Spell Compendium, though, than desiring for full caster levels.

[roguethree]

I'd like to revisit this. (Look, I used the forum's search function!)

Every argument in this thread that said that paladins were tough without buffs is wrong; without buffs, they're mulch.

Holy Avenger dispel DC, despite what it's set at (example: my sword is set at DC 26), only goes as high as the character's level, and caster's don't autofail on 1s. That means that for a level 21 paladin, Dispel: On Hit doesn't work unless the caster is only level 19 and rolls a 1 for its check (against Dispel: On Hit, the caster makes a check of 1 + Caster Level v. the On Hit DC; in DnD, when rolling against a target number, tie goes to the roller). This means that paladins are not the super powered dispelling machines one would assume the sword makes them unless they're fighting vastly under-leveled opponents.

Given that people exploit Practiced Spellcaster with prestige classes to get a caster level of 23, you can expect your Holy Avenger to dispel nada against appropriately level opponents, nada in appropriately leveled dungeons.

Paladins are very light on feats, and Practiced Spellcaster is a must if you want your buffs to last for any length of time. Giving Paladins and Rangers full caster progression would help them move beyond the 10-minutes-a-day of decent to more durable, viable options, not to mention they'd be more useful to the party (especially parties lacking clerics/favored souls). Also, a cleric or wizard in a party with a paladin could spend less spell slots on buffing and reserve more slots for healing/damage spells, making that class more fun to play. Additionally, we could remove Practiced Caster from the game and the exploit it creates.

RSVP.

[Kaybrie]

Don't see why Paladin's can't have full spell levels, makes them easier to party with as a cleric and more fun to play in and of itself without tipping any balance scales what-so-ever. Especially when Holysword (Probably the one and only reason one might reconsider this) bugs anyways.

[Kaizen]

WARNING: Please keep in mind, when responding to this thread with your own thoughts that:


Dain Tornbrook =/= All paladins.

He is a super geared, ecl race restricted, level 21 paladin of destruction.

Take into account an average geared pally, at level 20 and below (everyone else).

Also: I THIRDED THIS MOTION

[Redjack]

I will agree with this if Black Guards can be modded to become an anti-paladin as they should be.

[roguethree]

This thread isn't about Blackguards and how everything about them but their super sweet summon sucks. I'm all for Antipaladins, by the way, which is a different class, but let's keep this about Paladin-Paladins.

[Seheren]

There are many servers that have done this. As well as adding a small spell book to BG. The thing is, the full progression adds absolutely nothing except a higher modifier for duration/damage on spells. No more spells per day, or even quicker progression. To me that in no way seems to overpower the class. You would have to give them battletide, stonebody, and recitation for me to think that they could even keep up with a Cleric in many circumstances.

I also think that most anyone can agree that BG could use a little love on the spells. Not necessarily even needing better spells, they just need options. A few spells per day, and a small array of appropriate spells to choose from, something to make them more of an anti Paladin and the ability to adapt to situations.

[Kaybrie]

Topic; Paladins.

[Kaeldorn]

It's a dumb canon rule that was born from the idea that paladins and rangers suddenly getting full casting abilities at level 4 in 3rd from level 7 in AD&D 2nd would be a too shocking change, or something equally silly.

Changing this would also put these classes on more even footing with other casters when it comes to the resting changes that will soon be applied.

[Seheren]

Totally made BG a second point. Don't get nit-picky.

Is the addition of caster levels a possibilty?

[GodBeastX]

It affects more than just the paladin though.

If people were going pure pally I'd be more inclined to say "Hey, have full spell progression, you guys need it."

But when you mix it with other PrCs, you start to get an idea of why it's not so good to toss in there.

HOWEVER, I feel paladins could use a better feature set on abilities. It's just not the priority right now as we're pushing new content in.