Posted by Saerin on February 7, 2000 at 14:53:30:

In Reply to: Paladins are not the weakest class against a lich, not by a long shot. The only reasons paladins are not Lich-Killers is because there are too many stupid paladins running around, and thus no prepared lich should ever fall to a paladin. (n/t) posted by Bob on February 7, 2000 at 13:11:21:

> > > OK, I have rolled a shaman and a paladin, and I have a few questions. I had assumed that the paladin, being noble with the cause of the light, would be better suited for fighting against evil creatures, but I find that my shaman is putting up a much better fight. I just hit the point where I can be dispelled or dispel an enemy, and this puts my shaman at a good advantage. However, a paladin fighting a shaman, at least at lower levels, has no chance because their sanctuary is dispelled and the shaman is left to toy with them. Any constructive criticism is completely welcome.
> > > Paladin

True.. Paladins aren't the weakest class against
a lich. An arcane transmuter would be the weakest.

I don't think it has anything to do with paladins
being stupid. A prepared lich should never fall to
a paladin if he's using the correct phylacteries.
Then again, the trick has always been catching someone
unprepared.

I would doubt that paladins would be redesigned with
liches (specifically) in mind since the becoming isn't
a common occurance.

What I would like to see is something of a little
expansion to one of Rome's ideas. For example give
tattooed paladins under specific gods of light a special
power that enables the paladin to do something
special when fighting undead.

For example: when a shokite paladin attacks Zor.. a
special nuance to phoenix fire occurs with includes
a blinding, cursing holy light that does some damage and
is NOT hindered by the negative energy of a phylactery.

(yes I know this sounds like wrath.. it's just an example)

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup