Talk:Paladin, Tome (3.5e Class)

Page Titling

I thought the Class Inserter form would have added the (3.5E Class) to the end automatically, but it didn't. That needs fixed. IGTN 08:12, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Moved. Of course, I did the move before I remembered where I had seen 'Tome of Virtue' before. First off, do you not think that it is rude to impose like this, and assume that you can make the Tome of Virtue? (unless you are either Frank or K, in which case, nvm) Secondly, this should not read 'Paladin, Tome of Virtue' either way, it should read 'Paladin, Tome', as with all other Tome classes. Thirdly, if you intend to make a sourcebook like the Tomes, you must at least try and with the sourcebook first, and not leap ahead of yourself and make the mechanical peices first. → Rith ^(talk) 08:38, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

I labelled it as "Tome of Virtue" because it's based off what Frank shared of what the team's notes for the Tome of Virtue was going to be before they had to abandon the project. If you want to change it to "IGTN Variant", go ahead. http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49996&start=0 is the thread for the discussion where all of this is. The notes are in Frank's first post on the page. Other important posts are Kaelik: "The entire point is to claim ownership of the Tome series in such a way that we the community have a total rewrite of 3.5 in Tome form" (near the bottom) and Frank in the last post on the page. IGTN 05:17, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it should merely be labelled 'Paladin, Tome'. Especially seeing that even the classes made by Frank & K themselves end in 'Tome' and not 'Races of War' or 'Tome of Necromancy, so, I'll change that. → Rith ^(talk) 05:38, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Wizard?

I'd have an arguement that this class is strong even by wizard standards, and I base that on the fact that the class is, in essence, Paladin/Cleric gestalt. Yes, it's not the full cleric list, but enough of the big spells were it doesn't matter, and enough times per day to make a sorcerer proud. There's another 9th level casting "paladin" class in Complete Divine, but makes up for it in that it's fairly featureless (nothing to write home about anyway) and the casting is limited to 1 spell per level known, 3/day base, and Medium BAB.

Anyway, in calling it wizard, I'd have to compare it to the wizard or similar. And it has the power of 9th level casting, and the spells per day of a good caster, so it's already at least, sorcerer level, arguably low-sorcerer. Then, slap on full BAB, good HD, no ASF, and a shitload of really nice class features* and it just climbs and climbs. I feel the class has fallen victim to power creep. (*On a positive note, I like the class features, it's just too much with the whole everything else and casting. Honestly the paladin strikes me as if it is less of a caster and needs to employ more class features like this. Closest so far was the 'mundane but holy' maneuvers of the crusader.)

Discuss. -- Eiji Hyrule 00:07, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

It's missing most of the cleric's offensive powers against targets that aren't undead or demons. No Slay Living or Harm, for instance. If I designed the spell list right, this Paladin basically shouldn't be able to take down anything that matters in a single hit, and instead be reduced to grinding away their hit points, which is fine for her because of her defenses. I might remove a few problematic spells from the spell list, or defer them to higher levels, though.

When I same-game tested this class, grapple monsters managed to overwhelm the build I used (low strength, pumping Wisdom and Charisma to the max), but nothing else could since she had an armor class high enough to actually matter against level-appropriate basher monsters (I think it was 38 at 10th level), and saves capable of matching it, so the paladin was perfectly fine to try to grind things down with a little one-handed sword, until she got grappled by 5th-level monsters, where my using strength as a dump stat (plus the start middle-aged for cheap bennies to your mental stats trick) started to be a problem, so Freedom of Movement is actually the most problematic spell, although I might not want to eliminate it due to my design goals. In all, though, enough things had some capability of grappling that it didn't blow the test away at 5th or 10th level, and the 15th-level test used enough monsters I don't know that I couldn't fully evaluate it.

In a party, the goal is for this paladin to, basically, be a defensive wall that also heals and casts defensive spells on the rest of the party, while still providing some amount of damage output. To do that, the paladin basically needs to be immune or resistant to almost everything (check), have support abilities that actually matter (check), and have limited ability to actually advance the party toward winning on her own (I think I can check this off). Remember that by the time the Paladin gets the best Insightful Strike powers, the Wizard has enough save-or-dies to throw one every round and two in some rounds, and the Monk is throwing one on every attack, so doing 60 extra damage on your autoattack (42 from Insightful Strike's BAB 16 benefit plus power attacking, 16 more from Smite, and another two for good measure) isn't a meaningful contribution unless you can guarantee a full attack. The class is actually a similar concept to the Tome Fighter. --IGTN 08:32, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Too Much

Something that struck me as I was formatting is this class just has too much, and the focus just seems all over the place. I'd suggest tightening the focus a bit, especially on the spell list...cut it down to 6 levels of spells. The thing is, there's just a lot of flagrantly ridiculous stuff on every level of that spell list, stuff that has no business being there by default, especially on a class that's already as good as this one is and with the ability to fast-cast the spells. Surgo 07:11, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. I'm going to be re-examining this class when I do the Book of Civilization. Anything in particular I should reconsider? --IGTN 02:36, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

You have checked that your Paladin can do what a Paladin should be able to.

And yes he can. But he can do alot of things that he should not be able to.

1)Gate HAS to go honestly.

If you have a really strong defence because you are slowly cuting your enemy into peaces and has to survive so long thats fine. But then you have to be very carefull with giving him strong offence options... Because power is defence times offence. And if your defence is really strong slight changes in offence has a huge impact... And gate is no slight change but one of the most overpowered things in the game...

2)I would recommend to overthink the planar ally and miracles spells. That is a clerics job description and your paladin can do it more often than the cleric.

In my opinion if a paladin has localized the evil. He takes his sword and cut it into pieces. With the blessung of his god on him and his allies of course but still with the sword He does not summon an armies of angles and watch them do his work. Or ask his god to kill the vilian...

You do not have to agree with me one this. Thats just my point of view what a paladin should be. But be aware that if you give players a powerfull spell they most likely will use it.

3)If you can copy wizzard spells with limited wish or miracles in your game. And use the tome option to do it without XP costs. Then these HAS to go. Again too strong offence for this defence

4)Astral projection is an other powerfull spell that in my eyes do not goes well with the flavor of paladin In my point of view the paladin comes himself and do not send a projection of him, again you do not have to agree on this.

5)Do NOT take away freedom of movement. You need this. A paladin that goes into hiding when the big monsters show up is lame. So out of flavor you can not really avoid the grappling monsters. So it is not a good idea to make them your weakness. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.5.26.81 (talk • contribs) at

"Edited for Completeness"

@Karuma: How is altering an existing class feature "editing for completeness"? The Insightful Strike bonus feat was already a completed class feature, so I'd think you'd need author permission to add in your own personal feat.

Will revert if not responded to in 24 hours. --Quantumboost 22:19, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. I shouldn't listen to idiots who think I should do things backwards.

I had this on the bottom of my new feat: Special: A Paladin may take this feat instead of Insightful Strike.

Someone had the bright idea of convincing me to just put that onto the class itself. You can revert it instead if you want. Karuma 01:29, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it myself. Karuma 01:36, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. "For completeness" mostly meant that I hit a stumbling block codifying a paladin's code that doesn't suck, and also that some of the flavor sections were stubby.

The MAD that the paladin has between Wis and Cha was a deliberate design decision; I'm unlikely to mess with it unless I'm doing a more fundamental redesign of the class. --IGTN 02:36, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the Paladin needs both, and Verbose Assault's Special to be take in place of Insightful was to give a Paladin a bit of a choice for which side of her MAD she wants to lean towards. If you want to note my feat in the class itself, that would be fine. I will leave my feat as is for now. Karuma 02:21, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Dexterity save rather than Willpower?

I am curious why the additional good save progression went to Dexterity rather than Willpower. Strong Willpower seems a better fit for a Paladin.Fangotango (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Insightful Strike

Is this a first or second level class feature? In the table it is included at first level, in the description as second level.Fangotango (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)