|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 16, 2015 15:17:41 GMT -6
To adopt an AD&Dism: "Very rare".
Only 1 in 54 fighting-men (4/216) have a charisma of 17 or 18.
Let us suppose that only 1 in 3 fighting-men is lawful, getting us to 1 in 162 (3 * 54) lawful fighting-men with a 17 or 18 charisma.
Let us further suppose that only half of lawful fighting-men with a charisma of 17 or 18 actually want to make the sacrifices necessary to be a paladin. Now we're talking 1 in 324 (2 * 162).
Finally, let us not forget those poor former paladins! Suppose that 1 in 10 paladins loses his paladinhood. That gives us a final figure of there being only 1 paladin out of 360 fighting-men!
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 16, 2015 15:21:48 GMT -6
That's a good starting point. But I would suggest that the relative incidence of dead and retired Paladins is much lower than the same incidence for fighting men. By his very nature, Paladins would be more driven and more likely to survive to higher levels.
By the time you get to name level, the number might be much, much closer. Maybe 1 in 6 to 1 in 18 fighting men of level 9 or higher would be a paladin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 15:23:10 GMT -6
Well, in 42 years of 3d6 in order, somebody rolled up my game's second Paladin about two years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 16:22:25 GMT -6
Well, in 42 years of 3d6 in order, somebody rolled up my game's second Paladin about two years ago. What is the point of including a character class that happens once every 21 years of real life gaming? Cool, a paladin character class! I want to play one of those. You can, just have to play something else for the first 20 years. This game's stupid, let's play basketball. |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Mar 16, 2015 16:27:42 GMT -6
Yeah, given how much I always sucked at sports, I probably have more chances to honest-roll a paladin than to ever score a point in a basketball game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Mar 16, 2015 16:35:10 GMT -6
1 in 720 still seems high. Does this assume PCs only or game world as a whole?
What is the 1/6 * 1/6 * 1/3? I get that 4 in 216 3d6 combinations will yield a 17 or 18. Does it mean the chance that the 18 is on the Cha attribute instead of some other? And the 1/3 is the 3 classes (FM, MU, C)?
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 16, 2015 16:49:52 GMT -6
1 in 720 still seems high. Does this assume PCs only or game world as a whole? What is the 1/6 * 1/6 * 1/3? I get that 4 in 216 3d6 combinations will yield a 17 or 18. Does it mean the chance that the 18 is on the Cha attribute instead of some other? And the 1/3 is the 3 classes (FM, MU, C)? Game world as a whole. Keep in mind that the 1 in 360 isn't 1 paladin out of 360 humans. It's 1 paladin out of 360 fighting-men. Assuming only 1 in 100 humans isn't 0-level, and assuming half of humans with a class are fighting-men, then we have... 1 paladin for every 72,000 humans. I'm of course assuming "roll 3d6 in order" for ability score generation. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 16, 2015 17:41:30 GMT -6
I think the rate of losing paladinhood should be much higher than 1 in 10. It's a narrow, narrow path to walk.
On the other hand, the original paladin rules do say that a fighting-man who starts as and remains Lawful can become a paladin, but there's no rule that says they have to become a paladin at 1st level, or that they must roll 17+ CHarisma right at the start. A fighter who raises Charisma somehow could become a paladin later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 17:47:14 GMT -6
What is the point of including a character class that happens once every 21 years of real life gaming? Cool, a paladin character class! I want to play one of those. You can, just have to play something else for the first 20 years. This game's stupid, let's play basketball. Waah, waah, waah, you want some cheese and crackers to go with your whine? I just play with people who say "Cool, you actually rolled a paladin!" instead of crying and peeing in their diapers because they can't be pwecious widdle snowfwakes. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 16, 2015 18:08:48 GMT -6
While I prefer 3d6 in order, set in stone, it would be sad for someone to literally die of old age before he could ever play a paladin. Death-bed scene: Man's last words: "My one regret in life is that I never rolled a 17 charisma..." Nurse: "What does that mean, doctor?" Doctor: "Mean? Nothing. He was babbling."  If someone really wants to play a given class, I let him roll percentile dice on the appropriate table in the AD&D Rogues Gallery, and take those ability scores. That way he is guaranteed to have at least all the ability scores necessary for the class, and with a single roll of the dice! |
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Mar 16, 2015 18:40:15 GMT -6
Why do you feel the need to attack someone who just wants to enjoy a game that advocates altering the rules to make it enjoyable. I understand your preferences just not your invective.
|
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Mar 16, 2015 18:48:27 GMT -6
What is the point of including a character class that happens once every 21 years of real life gaming? Cool, a paladin character class! I want to play one of those. You can, just have to play something else for the first 20 years. This game's stupid, let's play basketball. Waah, waah, waah, you want some cheese and crackers to go with your whine? Tell me, do you actually realise that if someone criticises some rule in one particular edition of DnD or the other, it's not always, automatically, 100% of the time because they're crying munchkin snowflakes who want to abolish that rule so they can reach even greater heights of munchkinism; but rather, often because they just simply believe that the rule is nonsensical, silly, or could stand some improvement for various perfectly legitimate reasons? You do understand that this is the case, at least give me that. Or just do the other thing and tell us about how back in the day REAL DM's used to beat players unconscious with the Old School Real Tough DM-ing phallos, chopped off their die-rolling hands with a cleaver, then had them tongue their peeholes, because that's just how real DM-s used to roll in Gary's circles, and players who asked not to have their hands chopped off were laughed at for being special snowflake munchkins who have no business playing DnD. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 16, 2015 18:55:59 GMT -6
Maybe gronan was a bit harsh, but technically he's not attacking a play style. He's mocking about ptingler's complaint about D&D being "stupid" for including a character class that's extremely rare in actual play.
If ptingler had said instead "I don't see the point of including a character class that happens once every 21 years of real life gaming, so here is what I do instead," that would be different.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 19:29:51 GMT -6
..........
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 16, 2015 19:45:52 GMT -6
As I've noted before, nothing in Greyhawk says that Paladin status must be selected at 1st level; only that the Fighter must be lawful from the beginning. This may not be how the rule was actually used (Gronan can fill us in), but as written the rulebook could be interpreted as allowing a higher level lawful fighter to become a paladin. If this was intended, perhaps it was to allow pre-existing lawful Fighters to become Paladins when the Greyhawk supplement came out.
This also allows for the possibility that a Fighter with a lower Cha might later have it raised to 17 (by a wish, magic pool, etc) and then elect to become a paladin.
* * * * *
About ~1.85% of all 3d6-in-order characters will have 17 or 18 Cha. Anyone rolling up those stats can choose to be a paladin; there's no requirement for a minimum strength or anything else. So I don't think the option is as rare as indicated above; about 1-2 in 100 rolled up characters can be made into paladins.
If I rolled a 17 or 18 Cha character I would consider playing a Paladin even if my Str was low. Would be an interesting character like Geoffrey's Int 3 M-U he has mentioned before.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 16, 2015 20:32:55 GMT -6
Yeah, the more I think about it, my method of getting to 1 in 108 is probably faulty. I'd appreciate some schooling.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 22:12:41 GMT -6
Maybe gronan was a bit harsh, but technically he's not attacking a play style. He's mocking about ptingler's complaint about D&D being "stupid" for including a character class that's extremely rare in actual play. If ptingler had said instead "I don't see the point of including a character class that happens once every 21 years of real life gaming, so here is what I do instead," that would be different. Precisely. "I like Paladins to appear more frequently so I do this" is interesting. "This is a stupid rule" deserves only mockery. Just like "I don't like undead to drain levels permanently, what can I do instead?" begins a conversation. Saying (like someone did in another forum) "Undead draining levels permanently is a stupid rule and Gygax was stupid for putting it in" deserves only the response of "Chew the brown crust off my underpants." |
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Mar 17, 2015 10:46:48 GMT -6
Yeah, the more I think about it, my method of getting to 1 in 108 is probably faulty. I'd appreciate some schooling. It's actually 1 in 54. There are 3 out of 216 ways to roll a 17 plus 1 way to roll an 18. 216 / 4 = 54. Frank |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 11:01:33 GMT -6
I don't pay too much attention to the statistics of rolling a particular number, those are just statistics. Bitd I rolled up characters using the refs dice in front of the ref and the whole group, the same dice the other 20+ people were using and got the numbers to qualify for paladins and rangers, when the rest of the group was rolling 3's and 4's. Sometimes you get a lucky run with the dice. These days I roll up all the characters for my players. Sometimes I use 3d6 in order no adjustments or rearrangements allowed, sometimes I do something else. I have never met anyone other than myself who ever wanted or asked to play a Paladin or Ranger, but if they did I would let them. To me it is no big deal and the advantages to taking a subclass are a lot smaller than they are sometimes made out to be. Bitd I sometimes used the new mechanics in Greyhawk and sometimes I didn't. Paladins and Rangers run with d6 hit dice and no strength bonuses are barely different from a regular fighter. All and all, I think it is much ado about nothing. My table has a higher hygiene standard than that. If I can smell you, you need to find some other table. Just sayin'! |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 17, 2015 11:17:50 GMT -6
Looking at my own setting's demographic breakdown, one out of every 11 fighters is a Paladin. Because I don't use OD&D ability scores, that's why. You only need to roll high one high stat, put it in Charisma, and then play a Lawful fighting man to be a Paladin- at some point. So, much easier than 1 in 720. That means 490 paladins of any level in a population which totals 3.6 million men, women and children. Still incredibly rare, but everyone should know someone who knows a paladin. drive.google.com/file/d/0B_0ONkhGdLg8MGE4RVVCM2JncGc/view?usp=sharing |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 11:19:06 GMT -6
I think the rate of losing paladinhood should be much higher than 1 in 10. It's a narrow, narrow path to walk. On the other hand, the original paladin rules do say that a fighting-man who starts as and remains Lawful can become a paladin, but there's no rule that says they have to become a paladin at 1st level, or that they must roll 17+ CHarisma right at the start. A fighter who raises Charisma somehow could become a paladin later. I have played paladins under two refs (one bitd and one recently) and the one bitd gave me a fair amount of freedom, whereas the more recent one was more of a stickler. When I ref, if a player were to take a paladin, I would give the player a lot of freedom. From what I have heard, some DMs force the player to play lawful stupid, which IMO is not the intent of the game since it deliberately and for no good reason creates friction for the other players. This is the cause of the chorus that is always raised about why people don't like paladins. IMO the player should have the freedom to play a paladin over a wide range from "what would superman do" all the way to the bitter revenge driven "Solomon Kane" of REH. IMO that is a lot more interesting. IMO Lawful does not mean nice or stupid and the "gods" in my world are appropriate to the game not to modern real world sensitivities. |
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Mar 17, 2015 14:01:28 GMT -6
I have a relatively high proportion of paladins in my campaign because I assume that the ability score requirements are for PCs only, and that NPCs have more latitude.
~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 17, 2015 16:02:10 GMT -6
I actually did away with the hard Charisma requirement and made it a soft requirement instead. Or will make it one, can't remember if I blogged about it or wrote it down anywheres. Pick the lowest of Strength and Charisma and divide by two to get your prime requisite in terms of experience point modifiers. So, to earn experience at the normal rate, you need Charisma AND Strength to both be 18, but you can have lower scores in either or both and just take an XP penalty. Yes, you can be a Str 3 Cha 3 paladin, for only -20% experience! But then I would also require all paladins to obey a strict code I blogged about here. It's like the Three Laws of Robotics. A paladin must prioritize the innocent and helpless first, comrades second, opponents third, and themselves last. Any deviation from that means trouble. And no, I don't believe in players making up their own codes of conduct. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 17, 2015 16:06:53 GMT -6
Yeah, the more I think about it, my method of getting to 1 in 108 is probably faulty. I'd appreciate some schooling. It's actually 1 in 54. There are 3 out of 216 ways to roll a 17 plus 1 way to roll an 18. 216 / 4 = 54. Frank Ah, I see that now. Any one of the three dice can be a 5 as long as each of the other two are 6. Thanks for that! I'm going to fix my opening post now. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 17, 2015 16:23:27 GMT -6
1 in 54 is the same as ~1.85%. But I didn't figure that out myself, I just looked at this handy 3d6 Dice Odds table. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 17, 2015 17:11:48 GMT -6
1 in 54 is the same as ~1.85%. But I didn't figure that out myself, I just looked at this handy 3d6 Dice Odds table. That's a great table. Thanks for the link! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 18:36:18 GMT -6
I actually did away with the hard Charisma requirement and made it a soft requirement instead. Or will make it one, can't remember if I blogged about it or wrote it down anywheres. Pick the lowest of Strength and Charisma and divide by two to get your prime requisite in terms of experience point modifiers. So, to earn experience at the normal rate, you need Charisma AND Strength to both be 18, but you can have lower scores in either or both and just take an XP penalty. Yes, you can be a Str 3 Cha 3 paladin, for only -20% experience! But then I would also require all paladins to obey a strict code I blogged about here. It's like the Three Laws of Robotics. A paladin must prioritize the innocent and helpless first, comrades second, opponents third, and themselves last. Any deviation from that means trouble. And no, I don't believe in players making up their own codes of conduct. Seems odd to me since "Good" is not an alignment in OD&D; however, running a paladin like a Solomon Kane out to avenge the innocent that says Lawful to me and comes without the baggage of having the ref/DM forcing the player to play the paladin as a stupid pain using a modern definition of "Good" that is alien to an OD&D world. |
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Mar 17, 2015 18:58:29 GMT -6
Straight answer: Relatively rare in my games, although if someone really wanted to play a paladin (not that I've had many requests), I'd probably let him. Facetious answer: Rare? Red dragons like their paladins well-done! |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 17, 2015 19:03:43 GMT -6
I actually did away with the hard Charisma requirement and made it a soft requirement instead. Or will make it one, can't remember if I blogged about it or wrote it down anywheres. Pick the lowest of Strength and Charisma and divide by two to get your prime requisite in terms of experience point modifiers. So, to earn experience at the normal rate, you need Charisma AND Strength to both be 18, but you can have lower scores in either or both and just take an XP penalty. Yes, you can be a Str 3 Cha 3 paladin, for only -20% experience! But then I would also require all paladins to obey a strict code I blogged about here. It's like the Three Laws of Robotics. A paladin must prioritize the innocent and helpless first, comrades second, opponents third, and themselves last. Any deviation from that means trouble. And no, I don't believe in players making up their own codes of conduct. Seems odd to me since "Good" is not an alignment in OD&D; however, running a paladin like a Solomon Kane out to avenge the innocent that says Lawful to me and comes without the baggage of having the ref/DM forcing the player to play the paladin as a stupid pain using a modern definition of "Good" that is alien to an OD&D world. I suppose "helping the innocent" might seem like it came from the Good alignment, but I based the code on what appears to be the virtues of a Knight of the Round Table. Knights ride the countryside looking for people to help and are supposed to be charitable, loyal, brave and selfless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 19:13:06 GMT -6
Seems odd to me since "Good" is not an alignment in OD&D; however, running a paladin like a Solomon Kane out to avenge the innocent that says Lawful to me and comes without the baggage of having the ref/DM forcing the player to play the paladin as a stupid pain using a modern definition of "Good" that is alien to an OD&D world. I suppose "helping the innocent" might seem like it came from the Good alignment, but I based the code on what appears to be the virtues of a Knight of the Round Table. Knights ride the countryside looking for people to help and are supposed to be charitable, loyal, brave and selfless. I don't view Paladins as knights, I view them as a force of nature out to go scorched earth on evil wherever they find it. Paladins are not answerable to mortal law, they are the Law, they are the Chosen, they will stop at nothing to avenge. "Helping the innocent" is leaving nothing alive that would harm an innocent. YMMV |
|
