Paladin Change

[Kido]

Troops attack dragon with +35% increased power <-------- A nice bonus, only really effective if you have a group of Paladins.
-25% Defensive Losses <--------------------------------- Not really an attractive bonus. It's nice.. but highly situational. Combat Losses would make the entire personality more attractive
Immune to the Plague
Starting Soldiers +400
Starting Specialist Credits +400
Starting Wizards +400
All Paladin Only Spells & Fool's Gold <---------------------- Can take or leave Fools Gold.



In looking at this personality at the start of the age, I felt it looked like a tankier choice for an attacker, and a support focused mage. In practice, though, i think the bonuses sort of worked against each other, or at least didn't provide enough of a bonus on the Attacker or Mage side to allow them to effectively operate. No mage bonus means that the Paladin spells go underused, because the prov cant afford enough build space for towers/guilds (Attacker) or dedicate enough mana for self spells (Mage). -25% defensive losses is a bonus i don't really know how to use. I can see that perhaps a DE Paladin because of their building defense, but its probable War Hero would be a better choice for this. Perhaps for a TM, to slow down a chain on them, but it doesnt make sense to start from a position of thinking that your TMs will get chained. For an Attacker, despite there being better personality choices, more deaths while your offense is out is mostly better if you're getting chained. But on the point of better attacker and mage personality choices, Troops vs Dragons only really becomes a powerful bonus if a kingdom is running 3+ paladins, but -25% Def Losses and immune to plague are not quite enough sustainability for an attacker. For TMs, for every slot that doesn't go to a Rogue or Mystic thats 1 less that can do the war standard ops, MS and AW. But also, marginally easier dragon killing doesn't really seem worth it to sprinkle a few Paladins in with Attackers and TMs.

I like this personality, i liked Cleric, and it kind of looks like this is Cleric + some magery, which sounds great. However, i do think that its not quite where it needs to be to compete. My Changes:

Troops attack dragon with +35% increased power
*-30% Combat Losses*
Starting Soldiers +400
Starting Specialist Credits +400
Starting Wizards +400
*All Paladin Only Spells*
*+75% base success chance when casting self spells on own province*

Making it Combat Losses instead of Defensive Losses, its immediately more attractive for both an Attacker and a TM. I removed Fools Gold and Immunity to Plague for instead a flat success rate for self spells, this does push the personality further from Mage.. sort of. I think it allows self spells to be part of the way you run the province, not just for a slight bonus. It frees up a small amount of space that an Attacker or a Rogue might have had to dedicate to guilds, but it also preserves their ability to cast on themselves, i see this more as exchanging guilds for towers, for spell spam, rather than any other building. Immunity to Plague made the personality very much like Cleric, but i think it would be too much on top of other bonuses.

[Chris121]

I agree it's weak in comparison to other personalities.

I think any change needs to take into account whether faery is keeping the ability to cast spells on others (rather than pally having it). If pally gets it back then I don't think it would be weak anymore.

[Verminator]

Nobody ever talks about all the unique paladin spells. They do help the paladin be stout against thievery and magic, plus detrimental to attack, just not enough to outpace personalities like Sage when stoutness is important to the role of the province. I'd worry less about the set bonuses and more about tweaking paladin spells, as they are the true definer of the personality.

Perhaps removing the offensive paladin spells, or shunting them to offensively defined personalities, then centering the paladin spells around defensive buffing. It has the potential to be a great defensive personality, one of the few in the game, but right now it's just underwhelming compared to Sage, especially since Sage can be both offensive and defensive.

If Paladin could become a stronger defensive personality, Sage flexible for both, and maybe fix Warrior to be the stronger offensive personality, you have a nice selection to choose from.

Maybe Warrior gets a meaner Massacre, which is offensive against thieves and mages, whereas Paladin gets improvements to Divine Shield and Illuminate Shadows which are defensive against thieves and mages.

[Chris121]

If you make the focus on pally only spells, then I would just run a few fae pally so that everyone can have the pally spells. I still wouldn't use pally beyond the faeries.

It is very hard to balance if you focus on the pally only spells.

[Verminator]

If you make the focus on pally only spells, then I would just run a few fae pally so that everyone can have the pally spells. I still wouldn't use pally beyond the faeries.

It is very hard to balance if you focus on the pally only spells.

Unless you're looking for a proper defensive province or turtle attacker. It's all about the role you wish a province to play. And assigning such a limited role to an entire province slot is wasteful.

[Chris121]

I didn't really understand the last sentence of your response so I may have misunderstood.

But even if I want a defensive province or turtle attacker, if pally is "strengthened" by focusing on the pally only duration spells, I would still not choose pally because I can get those pally spells (along with everyone else in the KD) by having a few fae pally and then I can benefit from a different personality on top.

It is true that if I had a disorganized kd and I wanted a defensive prov / turtle attacker, THEN I might choose pally if you boost the spells in the way you suggest. But that is making pally pretty niche.

[RattleHead]

Paladin

Bonuses:

+35% Dragon slaying strength
-25% Rune costs (new)
Abolish Ritual Immunity (new)(Abolish cannot be cast on this Personality)
Plague Immunity

Starting Bonuses:

+400 Starting Soldiers
+400 Starting Specialist training credits
+400 Starting Wizards

Spell Book:
Paladins Inspiration, Fools Gold, Divine Shield, Magic Ward, Scientific Insight, Illuminate Shadows, Wrathful Smite and Barrier of Integrity (This is the only one I would buff, only by 2-3 hours)


I realize for coding purposes Abolish immunity would likely require either;
-Abolish casting to be moved to Ritual pages to allow for a separate target list to be populated there, OR
-for it to be possible to cast Abolish on Paladins, but that it would have no effect (kinda like Riots on WH, for example)

[Kido]

The Rune cost reduction would be a decent pers buff for all races and roles. Make it easier to cover rune cost of rituals. Though i still think a self spell success rate buff would make them an interesting choice, though then again just cause you have good success rate doesn't mean you'd get any duration on those and a success rate + duration minimum buff might be too much. So runes would probably be better for balancing.

BOI i agree needs a buff. At the moment its such a short duration that either control of drafting of 1 enemy becomes the whole focus of a solo Pally, or a kingdom would need to run several Paladins to make it worthwhile in controlling a few growing attackers.

Hmm, plague immunity means they would not feel the effects of plague and would pass it on right? So i guess thats a pretty decent buff. That said, as a different way of getting to the same result (combat losses reduction and less painful plague), maybe a buff to Hospital coverage, which would give them a better chance to cure plague and give a decent loss reduction. Hospitals at 25% build space give 50% chance to cure plague each day, and 75% lower combat losses. If they could reach that maximum effect easier, that would certainly help for a Pally playing attacker or hybrid. Plague immunity would be strong on a TM though, as its definitely a tactic to infect a Mage with plague in the first hits in chaining them - though if the changes in recent past have been to make it slightly easier to get attackers to breaking TMs, i think this bonus - even on a support mage - would slow down a war, by way of slowing down the dismantlement of Unbreakables.

I also think with the mix of spells Pally has, Pitfalls would fit in well

[Chris121]

@Kido - it already has plague immunity ;) I think it means that they cannot catch it or pass it on but I am not totally sure (versus if it means that can catch it and pass it on but feel no effects).

I am reluctant to sound negative on all the ideas but I don't think I would pick (or even allow others to pick, if I were in a KD where I set the set-up) pally with either of the options suggested so far. They are all interesting but I don't think they compete with some of the current pers.

Increased chance of self spell success doesn't add much IMHO because you need the guilds for duration anyway. You could say guilds are [x] times as effective at casting to get over that hurdle, maybe.
I like the immune to abolish idea, but with the current mechanics of needing success on only 5 people, then that wouldn't really matter much in practice in a 22+ person KD because there would be plenty of others to cast on instead (and presumably the pally would have fairly good wpa anyway).
Increased hosps effect can be useful too but given they have plague immunity already, it might be easier to just change the existing bonus into reduced losses on both off and def (I still wouldn't pick pally for this alone though).

ps 25% hosps isn't 50% chance to cure / 75% reduction in losses because building effects decrease as you have more of that kind of building.

[Kido]

@Kido - it already has plague immunity ;) I think it means that they cannot catch it or pass it on but I am not totally sure (versus if it means that can catch it and pass it on but feel no effects).

I am reluctant to sound negative on all the ideas but I don't think I would pick (or even allow others to pick, if I were in a KD where I set the set-up) pally with either of the options suggested so far. They are all interesting but I don't think they compete with some of the current pers.

Increased chance of self spell success doesn't add much IMHO because you need the guilds for duration anyway. You could say guilds are [x] times as effective at casting to get over that hurdle, maybe.
I like the immune to abolish idea, but with the current mechanics of needing success on only 5 people, then that wouldn't really matter much in practice in a 22+ person KD because there would be plenty of others to cast on instead (and presumably the pally would have fairly good wpa anyway).
Increased hosps effect can be useful too but given they have plague immunity already, it might be easier to just change the existing bonus into reduced losses on both off and def (I still wouldn't pick pally for this alone though).

ps 25% hosps isn't 50% chance to cure / 75% reduction in losses because building effects decrease as you have more of that kind of building.

No, sorry, i meant "right?" in more of a tone that it is the answer and i'm working stuff out about it. Plague immunity means that if you pick it up from being attacked or attacking, you wont feel any effects from it, but you can still pass it on. I removed plague immunity in my Original Post because imho the change to combat losses, their strong self spells, a minimum success rate for self spells and dragon killing potential in groups would be a pretty tanky attacker core.

Yes, like i alluded to before, guilds are both self spell success and control the duration of all casts (of course except instant casts). So in having the self spell success rate buff, a minimum duration buff would also need to be there, otherwise it is not as amazing - though it still means you can run a minimum amount of guilds, just enough to cast for short durations.

And no 25% hosps probably isnt 50%/75%, but it was short hand for an example. I just grabbed the maximum amount attainable as described on the wiki for an extreme example of what the bonus would be to illustrate how the buff could work. Shamefully, i dont possess the mathematical ability to work out what building percent max useful hospitals would be by way of the formula - or more specifically, i'm a little confused on how certain variables for the formula are input.

Simply changing it to Combat Losses from defensive losses would basically make the personality Cleric, which before it was removed was, as far as i saw, one of the favorite picks for Avian and a preferable one for Orc - but the races have been tweaked since it was removed so it may not make as much sense at the moment. The extra bonuses of some decent self spells and dragon killing would be, as said above, a pretty powerful attacker. So, Hospitals efficiency would also be a way of defining that it is a different personality to Cleric.

[Chris121]

Shamefully, i dont possess the mathematical ability to work out what building percent max useful hospitals would be by way of the formula .

.

It's not shameful. I only commented on it because I'm conscious others read this too so I don't want our discussion to inadvertently confuse other people. RatttleHead is good with the formulas - I think he will read this thread again ;)

Fair point about becoming similar to cleric. I'm not against making it a hospital bonus. Note though that a hospital bonus is weaker than a outright bonus (because hosps can be razed / BE can be reduced).

[sl0hnd]

Paladin only Combat spell, Freeze Training. Stops all troops in Que for 7 hours.

[Danjor]

We have 6 of the 21 DE Paladins in the World. AMA

[Pillz]

We have 6 of the 21 DE Paladins in the World. AMA

Why didn't you run a Pally DE core???

[Danjor]

We weren't 100% sold on the idea, so we split the core with traditional attacker combo. In hindsight, I think the balance is good as the DE/PA have lower ceiling offensively than other options (Orc, Dryad), but are costly to chain effectively and recover quickly. I'd like to know the exact numbers on wrathful smite, but it seems strong.