Grip for paladins and rangers

[Vaemar]

I open this thread since I saw this thing was mentioned a while ago in the thread about improving the ranger class. But since it also concerns paladin and is not really something which is key in improving the ranger class I think it deserves a thread of its own.

So here you have it!

The proposal is to give grip to rangers and paladins since they are melee specialist.

[Yemin]

There was a thread in 2012 or 2010 that got pretty heated but had some good points as to why paladin and rangers don't get grip.

Basically, I believe the argument was that grip is extremely hard to train up and at the average playable level of apprentice / journyman, it's effects add up to grant a fairly small advantage in the end. Something like a %5 resist rate over not having it. I know my wizard for example is rarely disarmed despite not having it.

I don't have strong feelings either way on this subject tbh. I do think that gaining spells as rangers and paladins should exclude them from other skills that are more martial focused but whether grip or something else should be one of them is debatable.

[Vaemar]

Well, paladins in my opinion are pretty martial, especially paladins devoted to patrons such as Helm, Torm, etc.

Rangers, to be fair, much less so. For my ranger I would rather prefer to be able to hide properly or having other more typical ranger stuff instead of grip. Also rangers don't get disarm at present and their characterization is more toward hunter than soldier. Okay, they hunt also humanoid races who use weapons, one could object.

I think the main issues to consider here are these:
-Fighters get already many feats and can specialize in weapons, is this not enough to make up for ranger and paladin spells (and skills)?
-Since all three are specialists in melee combat, i.e. their job is to use weapons in combat, shouldn't keeping the grip on their weapon be one of their top priorities?
-Shouldn't grip be considered something more akin to general melee skils such as dodge, parry, riposte, kick, bash and so on?

My answer to the three points would be tendentially yes...

[Yemin]

The number of feat points sounds like a lot but let me use my highest level fighter as an example.

His story makes him out to be a bedine spear dancer to Zhentila scout to Daggerford cavalryman to guilded lance cavalry specialist to steel fang shield fighter.

In the end I only spent the feats necessary to make him a subpar cavalryman and a shield fighter before running out of feat points. He doesn't even have enough feat points to completely top off all the feats necessary for his weapon. There are 5 feats generally necessary to be considered optimal as a fighter with one weapon. Feats which tbh, you can match three quarters of the numbers with 2 paladin spells alone.

This is of course subject to playstyle. i tend to pick feats that match the story generally. So it's rare that I'll make a character here and plan out his feat train.

My experience has shown me that each type of warrior is good at dealing with a specific thing. As you said, as a ranger. It's probably more useful to be concerned with dealing with monstrous creatures. Magical beasts, animals and plants than it is with other armed humans. Ditto for paladins and evil dragons, evil outsiders, undead etc and in that light I can see why grip, even disarm is not ranger available.

Now, my experience with disarm is somewhat negative but not wholely so. It is a useful skill no doubt, but disarming something like an ogre actually strips away one layer of defense. I.e. Parry. I've actually found i'm hit more and take more damage when I disarm some creatures. Grip is harder to comment on. It makes a difference but not as big of one as to feel strongly about it. I feel tbh as it is, grip is a garnish skill for fighters that is nice. Disarm because of how getting and rewielding works here, is kind of awkward and far more powerful against PCs than it should be, questionable against some NPCs and a mixed experience overall so take that as you will.

[Vaemar]

My stomach right now feels like yes for paladins and no for rangers.

The matter boils down to how much paladins are close to the real paladins of Charlemagne, but from what I see in game at least I take they are quite close to the knights of epic poems and legends. And those characters were like once every two days in a duel where they were trying to disarm or not to be disarmed, hence I see as pretty logical for them to have grip.

Rangers on the other hand are more hunters and more focused on killing outright than messing with their enemy's weapons.

It would also make sense for paladins to get disarm (as they do) and grip, while they forgo dual wield, while rangers have dual wield but not disarm, and fighters of course have all of them.

[Yemin]

Eh, I could get behind that.

[Alitar]

I still feel all warrior classes should receive grip. Aragorn wasn't inclined to drop his blade, nor Legolas his bow.

[Andreas]

I've always wondered why paladins don't get it since they're essentially tanks in FK. Rangers I don't necessarily see as front line warriors all the time because they wear lighter armor to take advantage of dexterity bonuses vs. being heavily armored combatants meant to take a beating and keep on going. Personally, I'd love it if paladins got grip added to their skill set. But I might be biased!

[Vaemar]

I have not a paladin and no intention to play one anytime soon, but I think that the lack of grip for a role that represents a knight, as a paladin is in this game, is something absolutely consistent with the role.

For rangers there are other considerations, since they are somewhat closer to hunters than to normal soldiers, so maybe that deserves a little more reflection, and I would set it aside for the moment.