Paladins & Knights: too many XP needed to level up? ... and a couple of other things!

C&C discussion. Fantasy roleplaying.
New products, general questions, the rules, laws, and the chaos.
Post Reply
Kyramor
Skobbit
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:27 pm

Paladins & Knights: too many XP needed to level up? ... and a couple of other things!

Post by Kyramor »

Hi everybody: I think that Paladins and Knights, and maybe even Barbarians (I don't have the Players Handbook here with me) need too many XP to level up, if compared to Fighters. I think so because I find Paladins, Knights and even Barbarians by far less effective in combat than Fighters, and furthermore Paladins and Knights are limited by their "moral code of conduct", so to speak.

Back in the old days of AD&D 1st and 2nd edition Paladins were a Fighter subclass (and then with the Unearthed Arcana a Cavalier subclass): that meant that a Paladin could do all that Fighters did, and many more things - lay on hands, detect evil, immunity to disease, spells! (C&C Paladins don't have spells, and I really appreciate that. So that was why the Paladins needed 2750 xp to level up. And even when the Cavalier class was introduced in the first UA, it was so powerful that with reason it and the Paladin (a Cavalier subclass, from then on, in 1st edition) needed many more XP than the Fighter to level up.

C&C seems to protect the niche of every class, and pays a lot of attention that no class steps into another one's toes. The Fighter is the only class that has a +1 To Hit Bonus right from the first level, has the Weapon Specialization feature (again, the only one class, at least officially, I think), and if I remember it correctly it's the only one class that can attack more than once in a round, similarly to what 1st edition AD&D Fighters did.

Neither the Paladin nor the Knight have anything like that. They are more your Holy Warrior and Warlord types, but in melee and ranged combat they are inferior to the Fighter. That's why I think that they should advance faster than they do, at least in official rules. What do you think?

What if all the Character Classes advanced at the same rate, much like what happens in more recent edtions of D&D or in Pathfinder? Do you think it would break the balance of the game? I've got some doubts about the Cleric, that seems to me the be very powerful as a class, in C&C. What do you think?

By the way, I'm thinking of substituting the detect evil feature of the Paladin, which I have always hated, with something like the Divine Sense of 5e (basically the Paladin senses the presence of undead, demons, devil, fiends, celestials and the like...): what do you think?

Many thanks, happy life, happy gaming and take care!

User avatar
Greyblade
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:53 am
Location: Paris, Wastri's homeland

Re: Paladins & Knights: too many XP needed to level up? ... and a couple of other things!

Post by Greyblade »

The correct answer is : C&C is an extremely house-rulable game & you can pretty much add or substract to it what you want.

Myself, I expanded the Fighter's Weapon Specialization into group of weapons rather than a singular one (gaining new groups as levels & bonuses progress), added Cleave from 3E, reworked Combat Dominance... Clerics, gave them a daily power based on the deity's portfolio & areas of influence

Etc etc...

Super easy, and matches my tastes better.

Have fun with your house rules :)
Durka durka Muhammad djihad

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: Paladins & Knights: too many XP needed to level up? ... and a couple of other things!

Post by Grandpa »

Kyramor wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:13 am
So that was why the Paladins needed 2750 xp to level up.
Because, overall they are more powerful than Fighters.

User avatar
Ancalagon
Ulthal
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 1:13 am
Location: Bellevue, NE

Re: Paladins & Knights: too many XP needed to level up? ... and a couple of other things!

Post by Ancalagon »

Kyramor wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:13 am
Hi everybody: I think that Paladins and Knights, and maybe even Barbarians (I don't have the Players Handbook here with me) need too many XP to level up, if compared to Fighters. I think so because I find Paladins, Knights and even Barbarians by far less effective in combat than Fighters, and furthermore Paladins and Knights are limited by their "moral code of conduct", so to speak.

<snip>

C&C seems to protect the niche of every class, and pays a lot of attention that no class steps into another one's toes. The Fighter is the only class that has a +1 To Hit Bonus right from the first level, has the Weapon Specialization feature (again, the only one class, at least officially, I think), and if I remember it correctly it's the only one class that can attack more than once in a round, similarly to what 1st edition AD&D Fighters did.

Neither the Paladin nor the Knight have anything like that. They are more your Holy Warrior and Warlord types, but in melee and ranged combat they are inferior to the Fighter. That's why I think that they should advance faster than they do, at least in official rules. What do you think?
Fighters having a +1 BtH at 1st level is fine with me. Knights and Paladins have other matters to deal with which, IMO, more than justifies those classes not having a +1 BtH at 1st level. There is much more to the game than combat... especially if playing in a setting in which feudalism and social class are important. Knights clearly have an advantage here as members of the noblility, albeit at the lower end but still of that social station. Paladin characters, as holy warrior types, could easily fall under the clergy. As for C&C's XP requirements, I've no problem with them at all.
Kyramor wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:13 am
What if all the Character Classes advanced at the same rate, much like what happens in more recent edtions of D&D or in Pathfinder? Do you think it would break the balance of the game? I've got some doubts about the Cleric, that seems to me the be very powerful as a class, in C&C. What do you think?
I intensely dislike the "everyone advances at the same rate" schtick of WotC D&D and PF. Some classes have more abilities / power / etc. than others so paying the price with a higher XP cost is logical to me.
Kyramor wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:13 am
By the way, I'm thinking of substituting the detect evil feature of the Paladin, which I have always hated, with something like the Divine Sense of 5e (basically the Paladin senses the presence of undead, demons, devil, fiends, celestials and the like...): what do you think?
The paladin's raison d'etre is adherence to lawful good struggling against evil. The detect evil ability is perfect for a paladin. I see no reason to change it.
Kyramor wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:13 am
Many thanks, happy life, happy gaming and take care!
Likewise!
Imaginatio est Vita
Grand Knight Commander

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: Paladins & Knights: too many XP needed to level up? ... and a couple of other things!

Post by Grandpa »

Kyramor wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:13 am
Do you think it would break the balance of the game? I've got some doubts about the Cleric, that seems to me the be very powerful as a class, in C&C. What do you think?
Clerics are almost never played or DM'ed as the game's inventor intended (as he once told me). They are usually played as a spell caster who can fight and wear armor. No thought as to what religious strictures and mandates are REQUIRED of the cleric PC. Just one minor example: Clerics are held to their alignment as strictly as a paladin is. Then all the other stuff that goes with that religion/god. Unlike with wizards and illusionists there is an intelligence with motives behind the abilities granted to a cleric. Leaving those factors out makes the XP requirements too low for a cleric.

User avatar
Captain_K
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2747
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:37 pm
Location: North Coast

Re: Paladins & Knights: too many XP needed to level up? ... and a couple of other things!

Post by Captain_K »

There is a nice fighter write up in one of the Domesday (7, 8 or 9) which is a composite house rule for fighters from Treebore, Rigon, Arduin, and me... aka TRACK fighter... you might like that.

Personally I love "getting something" with each level up other than more h.p and a +1 to save... just fun.
Wow, Another Natural One! You guys are a sink hole for luck. Stay away from my dice.

User avatar
Lurker
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4349
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:00 am
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Paladins & Knights: too many XP needed to level up? ... and a couple of other things!

Post by Lurker »

Greyblade wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:34 pm
The correct answer is : C&C is an extremely house-rulable game & you can pretty much add or substract to it what you want.

Myself, I expanded the Fighter's Weapon Specialization into group of weapons rather than a singular one (gaining new groups as levels & bonuses progress), added Cleave from 3E, reworked Combat Dominance... Clerics, gave them a daily power based on the deity's portfolio & areas of influence

Etc etc...

Super easy, and matches my tastes better.

Have fun with your house rules :)
Rgr that I'm right there with you !

I have HRed EVERYTHING in C&C and never got to the point where I broke the rules. That is what I love about the rules. I can modify it to make it dark ages grim, make it historic with a touch of fantasy, or high magic with flying ships and the like, and it doesn't break the rules.
Ancalagon wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:09 am

Fighters having a +1 BtH at 1st level is fine with me. Knights and Paladins have other matters to deal with which, IMO, more than justifies those classes not having a +1 BtH at 1st level. There is much more to the game than combat... especially if playing in a setting in which feudalism and social class are important. Knights clearly have an advantage here as members of the noblility, albeit at the lower end but still of that social station. Paladin characters, as holy warrior types, could easily fall under the clergy. As for C&C's XP requirements, I've no problem with them at all.

intensely dislike the "everyone advances at the same rate" schtick of WotC D&D and PF. Some classes have more abilities / power / etc. than others so paying the price with a higher XP cost is logical to me.
Kyramor wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:13 am
By the way, I'm thinking of substituting the detect evil feature of the Paladin, which I have always hated, with something like the Divine Sense of 5e (basically the Paladin senses the presence of undead, demons, devil, fiends, celestials and the like...): what do you think?
The paladin's raison d'etre is adherence to lawful good struggling against evil. The detect evil ability is perfect for a paladin. I see no reason to change it.
With you on all that too. A basic fighter is better at general combat yes, but the knight and paladin have their specific niche and it is much narrower. However, it over all is more powerful than a basic fighter so deserves a slower progression.

Yes a Knight as a low rung noble and a paladin as a low rung noble & member of the church have HUGE influence in social setting. If your game has no social setting impact and there is no social strata with defined privileges (that come with requirements) then it is a lesser impact. However, I lean to a more historic setting and if you touch a noble, unless you are a noble of equal rank BAD things happen, and it helps to have a noble (even a lowly knight) if you want to get in and talk to the Count, or you want the Shire Reeve not to hang your character out of hand because there are bandits in the area and your adventure party is in the area and he needs too hang someone to get the count off his back. Plus having a knight or a paladin opens a lot of doors in the village - that guild master or merchant would LOVE to have a grand child with a noble title tacked onto his name.

Rgr that on HATE the all classes advance at the same rate.
Grandpa wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:47 pm

Clerics are almost never played or DM'ed as the game's inventor intended (as he once told me). They are usually played as a spell caster who can fight and wear armor. No thought as to what religious strictures and mandates are REQUIRED of the cleric PC. Just one minor example: Clerics are held to their alignment as strictly as a paladin is. Then all the other stuff that goes with that religion/god. Unlike with wizards and illusionists there is an intelligence with motives behind the abilities granted to a cleric. Leaving those factors out makes the XP requirements too low for a cleric.


Rgr that too !

A paladin is a knight that swings his sword for his god and Good, a Cleric is a priest that risks life and limb to defend his flock and spread the influence of his god. They both have a moral code they MUST follow, If not, no special smite ability, no cure etc etc etc.
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Forgive all spelling errors.

Knight Errant & Humble C&C Society Contributor
C&C Society

Post Reply