|
The problem for paladins, AFAIAC, and one which became apparent when we first transferred our game from 2E to 3.0, is that they do not have the feats available to carry out their basic job.
Previously, a paladin had been a fighter 'with bells on'.
In 3.0, those bells had to be paid for by reduction somewhere else.
Earlier editions either assumed that all characters could ride, or made it a single non-weapon proficiency. Once assumed to be a rider, all characters were then assumed to be capable of Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample, etc.
Forcing PCs to buy all these options up again as individual feats is very costly, when the default character gains only 7 feats over a 20-level career. Unless of course the paladin is multi-classing as a fighter, which is restricted, and leads to accusations of min-maxing or cherry-picking.
Maybe the paladin could be granted bonus Mounted feats, or gain the effects of such 'virtual feats' while mounted on his celestial steed (or an earthly steed he has bonded with)?
The problem for paladins, AFAIAC, and one which became apparent when we first transferred our game from 2E to 3.0, is that they do not have the feats available to carry out their basic job.
Earlier editions either assumed that all characters could ride, or made it a single non-weapon proficiency. Once assumed to be a rider, all characters were then assumed to be capable of Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample, etc.
Forcing PCs to buy all these options up again as individual feats is very costly, when the default character gains only 7 feats over a 20-level career. Unless of course the paladin is multi-classing as a fighter, which is restricted, and leads to accusations of min-maxing or cherry-picking.Maybe the paladin could be granted bonus Mounted feats, or gain the effects of such 'virtual feats' while mounted on his celestial steed (or an earthly steed he has bonded with)?
Good point -- total agreement.
My favorite version of the Paladin class takes variant rules from PHB2 and The Complete Champion.
My Paladin sacrificed his unuseful (in most cases) mount for a charging smite ability, increasing his smite damage and bonus to attack on a charge. Also sacrificed his spells for additional feats similar to a fighter's bonus feats every 4 levels. That and I've gone into the Gray Guard PrC which adds some nifty Paladin abilities that are similar, but different enough to add variety.
While this is a bit more of a change from the norm, what if the Paladin was a spontaneous divine caster. Instead of a list spell they can prepare from, they get a small list of spells for each level that they can spontaneously cast. the list could vary based on the deity the paladin serves.
For example, A paladin of Iomedae might have this list of spells known:
1st - bless, bless water, bless weapon, cure light wounds, detect undead, divine favor, light, magic weapon, protection from chaos/evil
2nd - bull's strength, eagle's splendor, remove fear, shield other, zone of truth
3rd - cure moderate wounds, daylight, discern lies, greater magic weapon, magic circle against chaos/evil, prayer
4th - [i]break enchantment, dispel chaos/evil, holy sword, mark of justice
The paladin would be able to cast any spells from the list up to the number of spell slots per day the character has. This method would require the paladin to have a very small spell list though.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Any paladin players out there really care about the horse?
(raises hand) Yeah.
If you look through all the "Class Alternate Features" in later 3.5 splatbooks, you'll see that paladin mounts are right up there with ranger critter companions and sorcerer familiars and monk slow-falls for "Most frequently traded out class abilities"!
(I'm imagining that the 3.0 designers liked the idea of parties hauling around an animal-per-character a lot more than did the 3.5 developers...)
So, that stupid horse really hasn't gotten a lot of love. It's been traded out for manifesting spirit mentors, bull rush smiting bonuses, etc.
Part of the problem may stem from the distance that 3rd Edition took away from some of the low-fantasy "realism" elements of earlier editions. There is a lot more magic designed to get the party to where it wants to go, and much reduced emphasis on "bump-a-dee-dah" time. Lots of campaigns ignore horses entirely. They're a legacy feature from earlier editions.
Which is why the paladin gets a summoned "poke-mount" instead of a quest to find an honest-to-goodness warhorse.
(The next time I DM a paladin, the character's mount is going to be a celestial spirit that posesses the paladin's normal horse. This will allow the paladin to spend gp on maglic bling for the horse.)
Part of the problem may stem from the distance that 3rd Edition took away from some of the low-fantasy "realism" elements of earlier editions. There is a lot more magic designed to get the party to where it wants to go, and much reduced emphasis on "bump-a-dee-dah" time. Lots of campaigns ignore horses entirely. They're a legacy feature from earlier editions.
This is, unfortunately, true. Much as I love 3e, there's no question that it's taken quite a few steps away from the pulp fantasy tone of earlier editions. That said, the paladin mount has been part of the D&D paladin class longer than spells have been, so I'm loath to see it removed.
Building on your idea of a celestial spirit that possesses the paladin's normal horse, what about this: what if the celestial spirit was itself the paladin's "companion" and, whenever a paladin needed its services, it could possess any nearby riding animal, turning into some kind of holy charger with nifty abilities? It'd serve the same purpose as the derided "poke-mount," but it'd seem less unbelievable.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Building on your idea of a celestial spirit that possesses the paladin's normal horse, what about this: what if the celestial spirit was itself the paladin's "companion" and, whenever a paladin needed its services, it could possess any nearby riding animal, turning into some kind of holy charger with nifty abilities? It'd serve the same purpose as the derided "poke-mount," but it'd seem less unbelievable.
(laugh)
That'd work just fine. Now I'm imagining a paladin summoning her mount in the middle of a forest, and a dire wolf comes out of the valley to her left. Along with the rest of party, she scrambles for arms until she notices the ripple of silver along the edges of its fur. "Scout? Is that you?"Or a druid having an ale in a tavern, his cougar companion at his feet. The bartender hand him another glass and asks, "So, ah, the cat. It always does what you tell it?"
The druid eyes the man hard. "'Strewth, that she does." He looks at the ale and mutters, "Excepting when that green-forsaken little punk of a halfling 'calls his mount' an' there ain't nothin' about in the Deep-hallows to act as a suitable host. Some 'companion' ye are then, aren't ye?" And the cougar just tries to look contrite.
The problem for paladins, AFAIAC, and one which became apparent when we first transferred our game from 2E to 3.0, is that they do not have the feats available to carry out their basic job.
Previously, a paladin had been a fighter 'with bells on'.
In 3.0, those bells had to be paid for by reduction somewhere else.Earlier editions either assumed that all characters could ride, or made it a single non-weapon proficiency. Once assumed to be a rider, all characters were then assumed to be capable of Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample, etc.
Forcing PCs to buy all these options up again as individual feats is very costly, when the default character gains only 7 feats over a 20-level career. Unless of course the paladin is multi-classing as a fighter, which is restricted, and leads to accusations of min-maxing or cherry-picking.Maybe the paladin could be granted bonus Mounted feats, or gain the effects of such 'virtual feats' while mounted on his celestial steed (or an earthly steed he has bonded with)?
** spoiler omitted **
I like that idea. Maybe if we do end up with a mounted and unmounted paladin path, one of the "progressions" for the paladin will be mounted feats.
Paladins being lawful good only is a pretty big sacred cow for me. I realize that it is in many ways irrational, but it turns out I don't always get to consciously decide which parts of the game I find important and which ones I'm flexible on.
And I agree that the blackguard should be the 20-level-class for LE "paladins."
Breaking it down by class means that you can do much more interesting powers that actually play to the alignment and the play style of people who tend to play that alignment. The chaotic neutral "paladin" doesn't need to have some boilerplate "version" of lay on hands, he can do something else more appropriate to his archetype.
I do wonder how spells would work for this, though. 9 different "paladin" spell lists strikes me as:
a) A lot of work.
B) A lot of space in the book for stuff I will never use.
C) Perhaps more trouble than it is worth.Hmmmm.
I'd suggest 3 "kits", based of the Paladin, to start with. Concentrate on the lawful knights first, and each would have a basic spell list and skill list, with key "Domain Spells" of their diety. (Maybe have different HD as well, MCWoD does this with the demon class.)
There was work done on the old WOTC forums that differentiated Paladins based on if they got a Mount, or some other special features. This model is how I see making the knights different.
Dragon 106's Pallies, when it boils down to it, were very similar in functionality, with flavour tweaks here and there. Kits - the way of the future.
Feedback from my own group, from one of my players (not the one playing the paladin):
Smite and lay on hands are the signature abilities. Smite should be more impressive, and lay on hands should have other healing options. Mount should be an option, other option might be a holy relic of some kind like a holy sword, armor, or a shield that scales with levels.
Spellcasting is not important (for this player) as long as they get "holy warrior" abilities to compensate for it.
More as the others chime in.
I know it messes with backwards compatability a bit but personally i like the idea of paladin as a prestige class myself. If you think about it in real world terms how many Knights started off that way most served time as a squire of a knight or other noble. while this is not practical for a roleplaying game if paladin was a prestige class available at about 5th level for a fighter (and maybe cleric ect. depends on the game) it would feel like an achivement rather than a choice.
As to the poke-mount problem the best use i have seen a paladin mount put to was sort of a summonable bag of holding as they keep any gear you give them. I like some of the ideas to fix this problem others have suggested (real horse, spirit companion, and alt features) but sadly have nothing myself to add to the debate.
|
Be sure to take a look at Monte's Book of Experimental Might. Paladins and Rangers lose all their spells, but gain the choice in various Discipline abilities. And with new disciplines based on Alignment or Deity, you could have non-LG Paladins.
While I agree the Paladin should be LG, there is no reason why other deities could not have Champions too.
One of my problems with both Paladins and Monks is that too many of their abilities are built-in with no choice to the player. Add in the limited number of feats they get and there is very little to make one Paladin different from another.
As to the Poke-mounts, I would not mind if they were actual Celetial creatures comming to the aid of the Paladin.
In a world full of magic, saying "I can summon a horse!" is not going to get very many Bardic songs in your honor.
Another Paladin idea after talking with a friend.
Assumptions:
1. Paladins are Divine Warriors with High Charisma scores.
2. Paladins must follow a strict code of conduct (LG).
3. Paladins should have mechanics that match their flavor and differentiate them from fighters and clerics.
Suggestions
Paladins gain divine bonuses when demonstrating and following their beliefs in combat. For example, give rewards to paladins that successfully smite evil, paladins that lay hands on others in need, paladins that charge into danger to save their friends, paladins that cover the retreat of their allies at personal risk, etc.
These rewards should and could be both for the paladin and the paladin's allies. For example, a paladin that smites evil might get a boost of temporary hit points while simultaneously awarding a morale bonus to attacks to his allies. A paladin that lays hands on others might recieve half as much in healing of his or her own wounds as a bonus for the good act.
I am not sure how difficult such ideas would be to integrate into the rules, but what I like about them is the linking of paladin conduct to paladin abilities and powers. Paladins would thus feel mechanically different in play, and the boosts that paladins would give others would make paladins welcome in parties or at least help other party members to put up with the paladin's righteous preachiness, etc.
Marnak
The 3 points I’d like to address are the Paladin’s alignment, spells and his mount.
1) The paladin is a holy warrior, sworn to uphold justice, to protect the weak and fight evil. That is the D&D definition at least, in real history they were the Highest Official guards in some cultures. The LG alignment is simply on the best alignments to define this behavior. An “Evil Paladin” would make no sense,; one could name it something else then, “Blackguard”, “Black Knight”, etc…
A Chaotic Paladin could work just fine if you take into consideration that the paladin is not a blind follower of laws; he upholds the law if they are for the good; they would fight against a tyrannical ruler; they fight for freedom. Freedom and chaos are two completely different things; think of King Arthur ruling Camelot, the people of Camelot lived under its laws but they were free, they were not oppressed. Now think of a chaotic barbarian tribe; the weak is oppressed by the strong; this is not freedom.
A Paladin would act “lawful” when following a law that acted for the good of others, and “chaotic”, to fight against a tyrant.
2) I personally don’t like the idea of paladins and rangers casting spells, I have a hard time picturing it right in my mind. For paladins I'd prefer more the concept of “auras”, imbuing a weapon with good energy or even special abilities similar to the Divine feats where you'd spend a Turn attempt to gain bonuses against a foe.
In my game I give paladins and rangers bonus feats instead of spells; my players liked the idea and agreed it gave a better feeling to these classes.
This spell-casting issue for paladins is not a huge deal for me though, it's not it that will decide whether I'll use Pathfinder or not. If Pathfinder indeed comes with spell-casting knights and rangers, and if I migrate to it; I’ll just house-rule it.
3) Back in the old editions when they designed the Paladin, I think they gave it a mount for a more “Knight in the shinning armor on his white stallion” look; and it has become a sacred cow since then (well, in this case maybe a sacred horse). They shouldn't force you to fight mounted, you shouldn't be penalized for choosing a melee fighter instead of mounted knight style (well, except of course for the disadvantage against a mounted opponent, but this something else).
For a change and for compatibility, why not go both ways. Like with the Ranger class, upon a certain level you'd choose a style: Mounted Knight or Melee Warrior; and gain abilities accordingly… or just give it bonus feats and let people decide.
3.5E is a ruleset that isn't happy unless every class can cast spells!
Why does the paladin need to cast spells? why not enhance the holy abilities, Lay on hands, Smite, Detect evil, Remove disease are all core abilities, and so is Paladin mount.
I'd rather play a Paladin that has more uses of these abilities, maybe a few new sparkly ones, dependant on Diety chosen and forget the spell casting.
I'd prefer to see Variant Alignment Paladins as a DM +1 LA God Touched Holy Warrior Template that can be applied to all classes if the DM is willing. I never cared for the fact that only the LGs could be Paladins.
3.5E is a ruleset that isn't happy unless every class can cast spells!
Why does the paladin need to cast spells? why not enhance the holy abilities, Lay on hands, Smite, Detect evil, Remove disease are all core abilities, and so is Paladin mount.
FWIW, the first appearance of the paladin class in 1975 did not include spells as part of his repertoire of abilities. The paladin could lay on hands, cure diseases, and dispel evil. He could also summon a mount but there's no clear implication that it was re-summonable on a regular basis. Paladin also received better saving throws (+2 to all).
Given that a) backward compatibility is paramount b) players are asking for better paladin abilities and c) the original conception of the paladin was not a spellcaster, why not give the Pathfinder paladin talent choices -- let's call them "charisms" -- some of which are spellcasting abilities that, if taken in total, closely approximate the spells of the v.3.5 paladin. However, if players don't wish to go that route, they should have other charisms available to choose from. This would give the paladin a wider range of abilities and keep the class (largely) backward compatible.
|
|
(laugh)
That'd work just fine. Now I'm imagining a paladin summoning her mount in the middle of a forest, and a dire wolf comes out of the valley to her left. Along with the rest of party, she scrambles for arms until she notices the ripple of silver along the edges of its fur. "Scout? Is that you?"
Princess Mononoke?
Is that you?The druid eyes the man hard. "'Strewth, that she does." He looks at the ale and mutters, "Excepting when that green-forsaken little punk of a halfling 'calls his mount' an' there ain't nothin' about in the Deep-hallows to act as a suitable host. Some 'companion' ye are then, aren't ye?" And the cougar just tries to look contrite.
Cringer? Is that you?
Battlecat? Is that you?
For some reason, I can't see my previous post, and the boards don't register this as a thread I replied to, so I'll re-post it.
My biggest paladin problem is that after 6th level, they get no new class abilities. There's no reason to stick with the class after that. <sarcasm>"I can cast Remove Disease one more time per week? Whoop-de-doo!"</sarcasm>
(yes, I know that they get spells, but they're not good enough and Paladins get too few for them to really be useful.)
Given the nice slew of class abilities Paizo is throwing out here, I'm hopeful that this will be addressed. . .
Rest assured, this is a concern that I will be addressing. That said, do you have any suggestions.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Since you asked for it, here's what I started doing when I toyed with 3.75ing D&D:
PALADIN
Celestial Cavalier Talent Tree:
Celestial Charger – You gain the service of a celestial spirit that looks like an exceptionally powerful heavy warhorse. Requirement: Any two talents from the Hospitaler or Beacon talent trees.
Celestial Destrier – Your companion grow in power and motes of light around it coalesce into a beautifully forged set of plate barding. Any piece of barding removed disappears instantly. Requirement: Celestial Charger, 7th level.
Unicorn Charger – Your companion becomes a bit slimmer and motes of light on its forehead coalesce into a graceful spiralled horn. Requirement: Celestial Charger, Lay On Hands, Remove Disease.
Winged Charger – Motes of light encircle your companion and coalesce into powerful feathered wings. Requirement: Celestial Charger, 9th level.
Hospitaler Talent Tree:
Lay On Hands – You heal wounds in the thick of battle. You can only heal wounds suffered in the last 10 rounds.
Remove Disease – Ritual. Once per day you can remove a nonmagical disease from a non-evil creature. If you have the Remove Curse talent, you can also remove magical diseases. Requirement: Lay On Hands.
Remove Curse – Ritual. Once per day you can remove a curse or magical from a non-evil creature. Requirement: Lay On Hands.
Beacon Talent Tree:
Aura of Courage –
Aura of Light –
Aura of Protection –
Aura of Life –
Templar Talent Tree:
Smite –
Healing Smite –
Blinding Smite -
As for Alignment, I prefer Paladins to be *Good*. Most Paladins would be LG, and uphold just laws. But a Paladin that lives in an land ruled by Evil can instead be CG.
Feedback from my own group, from one of my players (not the one playing the paladin):
Smite and lay on hands are the signature abilities. Smite should be more impressive, and lay on hands should have other healing options. Mount should be an option, other option might be a holy relic of some kind like a holy sword, armor, or a shield that scales with levels.
Spellcasting is not important (for this player) as long as they get "holy warrior" abilities to compensate for it.
More as the others chime in.
Further thoughts from the players:
(Goliath Fighter/Rogue Player): Mount should be present, but as an option. Spells might be good as an option. Scaling holy relic sounds like a really good idea. Smite should be something that "can't turn out wussy," i.e. there should me more thrust behind it than something like +1 damage at first level.
(Paladin Player): She emphatically says that the mount must remain as an option if nothing else. Healing and turning undead are important to the feel of the class, but how they do this isn't that important. In fact, she kind of likes the idea that their holy abilities are gifts that they can use rather than spells to be prepared. She also likes the idea of a holy weapon at a certain level.
|
|
Allow me to chime in:
First, as a long-time player of D&D since about 1980; I have always loved paladins and have been one of my favorite character classes. I believe, like many on here who have expressed, that their alignment of LG is iconic and should never be changed - the notion that it was not a requirement of 4th ed paladins was the first thing I read and irritated the heck out of me.
I believe that chaotic gods need a champion as well; and that you essentially need two classes: Paladin (LG) and Crusader (NG). (since evil-only character classes tend to be NPC only - it need not be a core class described - just a blurp in the write-ups of both the Paladin and Crusader as to what a "fallen" version of this class would be like. Furthermore, neutral gods have both - forming different orders within the church - often times disagreeing on ethics).
My problems with the modern paladin class is; and the proposed fixes are:
1.) Not enough skills. The Paladin is multi-dimensional in their role. They are part healer, part orator/leader, part warrior (mounted often), and part spellcaster. Thus they need the basic skills of a warrior, climb, jump, swim; plus ride. They need spellcasting skills such as Concentration, Spellcraft perhaps, and the clerical skills of Knowledge Religion and Heal; plus they need vocal skills such as Diplomacy and Sense Motive to be good leaders and spokesman for the party. I have been granting 4 skill points per level for years now for our paladins and it makes a lot of difference - but far from unbalancing. They still get less saving throw base than a cleric and less hit points of a barbarian (who get 4).
2.) Not enough Smites. This ability is one of the most important martial-based ability to a paladin, but they're too scarce; who cares that he can cure disease a second time in a week - disease is hardly a real threat by that level of a campaign where paladins are getting to cure disease two times a week. Furthermore, a paladin should not "USE UP" the smite if he missed his attack. A monk doesn't lose his stunning fist if he misses and they have 3 times the number of attempts a day typically. The smite should ONLY EVER be used if he hits.
3.) Too front-loaded as some have said. Getting all the class features by level 5 makes most paladins a stopping ground up to 4th levelish; they're spells are great enough to continue on by most gamers looking to min/max. First I would change the immediate benefit of Divine Grace. A paladin with 18 Charisma goes from +0 to +4 to all saves in the matter of level. I say, grant an initial +1 or 2 at like 2nd level, and then allow the bonus to continue to increase as the character advances. +2 at 5th, +3 at 10th etc.
4.) The mount is a non-issue in many games - its really only useable in campaigns that have a lot of feudal type mounted combat scenarios and campaigns where dungeon crawls are scarce at best. To be one of the primary focal points of the class, the mount is not a good choice (with the exception of small-sized races who can take their mounts underground).
5.) Not enough diversity in the class features; especially when considering the mount is not as game-helpful as it often is. I say that instead of the mount (or as a player option) to allow something else.
What I propose as a different type of class feature to add more options to the Paladin is borrowing the idea from Dungeons and Dragons Online; allow the paladins' aura to do MORE for the party than just save bonuses to fear. I play a paladin in that game: trust me everyone likes a paladin in their group because of their group-benefiting auras. Allow the paladin to have an aura that he can choose to Increase the party's AC, or Attacks, Or Saving Throws, Or Energy Resistance, or use it to heal the party. The bard is useful for the things he can do for his entire party. The Paladin is theoretically the party's leader and inspiration on the battlefield - allow him to have these types of aura options to bolster an entire party (or 30' or whatever); the bonus of which increases (and the size of the aura) as the paladin advances in levels. I think the diversifying of the aura is exactly what a paladin should do; and a player of a paladin who truly enjoys the role should love to help the party in this way - I love playing my paladin in DDO and make him completely the party oriented character with all his abilities/enhancements to aid the party's overall survival. I love being counted on like that and being truly wanted to be part of any party.
5.) Finally the lay on hands is too small amount of healing. Either increase the number of times a day he can lay on hands, or make it part of an aura that can affect the whole party (like the healing surges that I've been reading about in 4th edition). Ultimately, allow the lay on Hands to do more than just heal hit points; Perhaps the "Remove Disease" is part of the Lay on Hands tree that it can do as the paladin advances. At low levels, its just hit points, but as he advances it can also do Lesser Restor, Cure Disease, Neutralize Poison, etc.
If I redid the paladin for D&D I would use the various auras and diversified laying on hands as the crux of their role's abilities.
Thanks for listening,
Robert
I agree with this. The Lawful Good and Lawful Good-only paladin has been a staple of D&D since the very first supplement to OD&D in 1975 (yes, yes, it was just Lawful back then, but the point stands). Indeed, the alignment restriction is one of the most iconic elements of the class. To change it is to turn one's back on tradition and I thought part of the point of Pathfinder was to stay true to the 30+ years of accumulated story.Here's some thoughts:
Overall, while yes I want D&D to stay D&D, holding on to something that (at least to me) was so horribly wrong to begin with just because "it's iconic/always been that way" is just as bad as "change for the sake of change"
That being said, if I may add my thoughts on the "Paladin":
1) Make it so the Paladin is NOT required to be LG. I mean why can't non-LG deities have holy warriors.
IMHO, Paladins shouldn't be forced into being servants of deities. That's for clerics (and the D&D cleric is militant enough for that).
Paladins, in D&D, represent something higher, something better, a greater ideal of behaviour. The Paladin doesn't get his powers from a deity, but from his own righteousness. If he chooses to follow a deity, it will be a deity that reflects his ideals. He won't follow the code because of the deity, he'll follow the deity that spouses the code.
Paladins being lawful good only is a pretty big sacred cow for me. I realize that it is in many ways irrational, but it turns out I don't always get to consciously decide which parts of the game I find important and which ones I'm flexible on.
And I agree that the blackguard should be the 20-level-class for LE "paladins."
Breaking it down by class means that you can do much more interesting powers that actually play to the alignment and the play style of people who tend to play that alignment. The chaotic neutral "paladin" doesn't need to have some boilerplate "version" of lay on hands, he can do something else more appropriate to his archetype.
I do wonder how spells would work for this, though. 9 different "paladin" spell lists strikes me as:
a) A lot of work.
B) A lot of space in the book for stuff I will never use.
C) Perhaps more trouble than it is worth.Hmmmm.
I agree with all of your points above, Eric. It does not seem reasonable. I wonder though if the paladin's abilities and spells could be written as "non-denominational"? For example:
Smite Evil/Law/Good/Chaos becomes "smite heretic" and whichever opposite half of the crusader's alignment (Lawful vs. Chaotic or Good vs. Evil) the player chooses is permanent. If they choose the diametrically opposed alignment (Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Evil) they get double smite damage (or at least a bonus) because it would be used less often
Lay on Hands must be either positive or negative energy as the cleric's turning ability is now described. They channel this energy into their weapon and charge it with good, evil, chaotic, or lawful energy as a swift action. This takes away from their total number of daily turning attempts.
I think Robert Brambley's post is very good, and I think his suggested changes are well worth considering. Other good ideas throughout this thread, but I like his ideas the best because the changes are relatively simple and more backwards compatible with 3.5e than some others.
|
|
Ive seen some great Ideas for Paladins here and I would like to point out that the Marshal from the miniatures handbook has "auras" that can do many of the things most people talk about. Why not add some of those abilities to the Paladin, so he can truly be the battle field inspiration that he should be.
edit: But most defiantly he should remain strictly lawful good
On a second read-through of this particular thread it occurred to me that I had only read through the first page, not the rest of the other posts... sorry for that.
As for the paladin remaining Lawful Good - I am completely comfortable with that. To see what a paladin stands for and create or manipulate abilities and skills around those ideals is the best way to go.
I like the idea presented earlier of the various Oaths. It offers the player flexibility much like the rogue's ability to choose particular special abilities.
Compassion = Healing, Truth = Zone of Truth, Justice = Retributive Strike, Hospitality = bonus to Charisma based skills or healing, etc. All of these make sense to me.
I also believe that the mount is a great option but in most campaigns becomes unnecessary because the party spends 85% of their time in cramped dungeons. It should be an option, but perhaps one of several the paladin has at her disposal such as communing with other celestial agents of her deity.
The idea of a squire is a good start but perhaps a free Leadership feat that gives the option of a younger paladin or acolyte to serve with and learn from the paladin.
1) Make it so the Paladin is NOT required to be LG. I mean why can't non-LG deities have holy warriors.
I think what people are missing is that the paladin is not a "holy warrior." Rather, a paladin is a very specific example of a "fighter" who adheres to a strict code that places law and good deeds above all else. A paladin can -- and usually does -- serve a deity but what a paladin truly represents is a zealous devotion for righteousness, which is to say, justice, respect for legitimate authorities, honor, and truth. These are ideals that transcend the dogma of any particular religion. If anything, the paladin is better called an "alignment warrior," since he's a champion of all that Law and Good stand for. I think the fixation on paladins being holy warriors in a narrow sense is distorting what the class is and why it has an alignment restriction.
|
Sorry about not weighing in on this before now, as I too have been playing the game since before 1st Ed. I love the paladin. It's probably my second favorite class currently (the "flower-power" monk being my all time favorite. ;) )
Now I'm for giving the class a makeover, because this paragon of virtue can surely use it. And I say paragon of virtue, because that's exactly what its supposed to be. The paladin is supposed to have unquestionable ethics, a morality and sense of honor that is beyond reproach (which, by the way, is the reason that, before the Oriental Adventures book came out for 3rd, it was suggested that paladin be used as representation for the samurai in a couple of adventures and even the original 3rd Ed. DMG. Not a fighter, but paladin). It is also for those very reasons that the party's paladin was more often than not look to as the leader, the very face of the group. It was for those very things that people who would turn away from the charismatic party fighter had a hard time doing the same to the paladin. Paladins inspire trust and, as a result, people were ready to follow them literally to hell and back.
When I think of paladins, two superheroes come to mind: Superman and Captain America (although it could also be argued that DC's Captain Marvel fits the bill better than Supes, but that's neither here nor there right now). They are the heroes that the other heroes in their respective comic book worlds look up to. Their very presence inspires, simply because they are so uncompromising in their pursuit of Justice, Truth, and the Greater Good for all mankind. That they are not willing to become like the fiends they are sworn to apprehend.
So the idea that a paladin can be something other than Lawful Good does not sit well with me (barbarians and bards not being lawful in alignment works fine, as does the concept of the monk being lawful). That is truly a sacred cow that need not be sacrificed.
I do like the idea presented earlier of giving the paladin a bonded weapon that becomes a holy avenger over time. That would go a long way to giving the class a little more oomph. Especially if you took the current incarnation of the weapon out from the DMG. I'm not too keen on the idea of auras but then, that's because it seems very World of Warcraft to me. Let the other company do this with their paladin. Ours (and therefore Paizo's) must be better than that.
I'm also for the keeping of the mount (notice I didn't say horse, because I think that it can be something other than that). The paladin in my Pathfinder game is currently using a Dire Lion as his mount and has taken all the riding feats he can to make the most of it. Now picture that charging at you from across the field. And being able to call/dismiss it has made his life a little easier (can you imagine what the stabling for a Dire Lion would be like?). And with that in mind I say this: give the paladin Leadership as a bonus feat. That way, those that want the option of using a mount will have a little more variety in their choices, even if it means that they may have to wait longer level-wise to achieve their choice. And as for those that don't want to use the mount, they can use Leadership to gain a cohort instead. (All of this is listed in the DMG under Leadership, though it has been expanded on in that cleric/paladin splatbook the other company put out.
I think what people are missing is that the paladin is not a "holy warrior." Rather, a paladin is a very specific example of a "fighter" who adheres to a strict code that places law and good deeds above all else. *snip*
The Paladin has alot of abilities rightly associated with deities and the role of a "Holy Warrior". There's plenty of "Divine" abilities in his current incarnation and he has abilities such as Turn Undead (normally reserved for the religious classes) and has a spell list echoing that of clerics.
However, I agree that a Paladin shouldn't need to be associated with deities but then I think we must address where he's getting his power from exactly. Wizards mumble off arcane formulae, sorcerers are gifted with magical blood, clerics channel the power of their deity and psions have a hyper-developed frontal lobe. Does the Paladin become immune to disease because he's so zealous? Does he Detect Evil because he is so stubborn?Being good at something is one thing. A fighter is a great, well, fighter! And he does so purely on the merits of being a bad ass. But it is one thing being able to swing a sword around or to be a bat short of a belfry (Barbarian) and completely another to manifest supernatural abilities ala Paladin. It sounds "more" like a template rather than a class if the Paladin is simply some dude that is just really really committed (Clerics have their faith, druids have nature, rogues/rangers and fighters have their training and hate in the case of rangers, wizards have their education, sorcerers are gifted with magical blood, Bard tap into the magic of music and Barbarians are a slice short of a cake. Monks are perhaps the most supernatural class, since they have no obvious source of power than themselves, but then again their alignment restriction is not as much of a sacred cow methinks.)
After some thought I'd say that no, the Paladin need not be religious. But I'd say he certainly has a patron or patrons that gift him with this power, whether he knows so or not. If he has no particular religion but is Lawful Good it could be a whole host of deities that gift him with his abilities.
It is also clear that people do not want the Paladin to be anything else but LG, I disagree and so does my group (of 6) and we're clearly not alone on the issue. But I'd be happy with just having a small sidebar with some suggestions as to how to convert it to the champion of Chaos and Evil. Keep the iconic Paladin class LG, make him Mr. Goody Two-shoes, but don't simply ignore that there is a great want for a holy-warrioresque class that is not one of the Good guys. Making it a mirror of the Paladin class is the easiest to implement. ;)
My biggest paladin problem is that after 6th level, they get no new class abilities. There's no reason to stick with the class after that. <sarcasm>"I can cast Remove Disease one more time per week? Whoop-de-doo!"</sarcasm>
(yes, I know that they get spells, but they're not good enough and Paladins get too few for them to really be useful.)
Given the nice slew of class abilities Paizo is throwing out here, I'm hopeful that this will be addressed. . .
Rest assured, this is a concern that I will be addressing. That said, do you have any suggestions.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I'd love to see palidins take on a role of Leadership.
powers that cheer lead for the other characters in the group who share his alignment(or better still deighty).
And abilities which give him command of mooks.
I like the idea of palidins whipping up mobs on level one commoners and warriors to go burn down the local apothicies shop cause shes a witch. (Resists comments about newts and ducks.)
It should be palidins who lead the defence of the castle wall, empowering his soldiers with his overwelming faith.
It would be nice to see a mechanicial reason for characters other than clerics and palidins to be associated, as a worshipper, with a god.
When I think of paladins, two superheroes come to mind: Superman and Captain America (although it could also be argued that DC's Captain Marvel fits the bill better than Supes, but that's neither here nor there right now). They are the heroes that the other heroes in their respective comic book worlds look up to. Their very presence inspires, simply because they are so uncompromising in their pursuit of Justice, Truth, and the Greater Good for all mankind. That they are not willing to become like the fiends they are sworn to apprehend.
Exactly. Remember too that D&D's paladin class is largely inspired by Poul Anderson's novel Three Hearts and Three Lions, whose protagonist is Ogier the Dane is one of the twelve paladins of Charlemagne. Paladins are (roughly) the French equivalents of the Knights of the Round Table and are dedicated to extremely high ideals -- virtue both in battle and in governance.
|
|
I think Robert Brambley's post is very good, and I think his suggested changes are well worth considering. Other good ideas throughout this thread, but I like his ideas the best because the changes are relatively simple and more backwards compatible with 3.5e than some others.
Thank you very much, Marnak. It's good that you didn't only express your opinion that you do like the ideas, but added why you thought they were worth considering.
Again thanks for the praise.
Robert
|
Just one voice among a whole bunch, but here's my opinions.
Changes/tweaks that i'm loving:
-Scent of Evil shown by Jason Nelson 20(Completely fixes Detect Evil without a severe nerf, in my opinion).
-Special Mount vs Hallowed Blade options (It really does work for rangers, why not for paladins? Additionally, i have a player who has made 3 paladins over the course of playing almost SOLELY for the mount. He'd be devastated if it were to go. Having said all that, if i played a paladin the last thing in the world that i would want is a warhorse to lug around).
-Kicking out spells (Useless? not completely. but close).
-Oaths for Powers option that Nighthunter mentioned (Reward players for behaving well! This doesn't fall too far from the whole concept of paladin, does it? God: "Be good!" Paladin-to-be: "Ok." God: "Cool. Here, go waste evil in my name." Paladin: "Wicked!... i mean Righteous!").
-Also liked the idea of giving a single domain for actual Deity flavor (makes a paladin more specific to a God without adding a metric ton of work and pages to a rulebook, though i'm not sure if that would be far too much if combined with Oaths for Powers - my initial thought is yes).
Other things:
I'm of a solid persuasion that "Paladins" should be lawful good, though i'm certainly not opposed to other lawful alignments having Paladin-like variants. Kind of a fan of anti-paladins too. But concerning non-lawfuls? Not a chance. It's not a stretch to require that monks need a lawful alignment because they devote themselves to training. Barbarians on the other hand, are prohibited from having a lawful alignment because rather than devoting themselves to chaos, they abandon themselves to it.
Hope this gets heard amidst all the other voices, even though it's just 2c.
In other news, i'm loving all the discussion! This is how things get well thought out - by examining all the angles!
|
Breaking it down by class means that you can do much more interesting powers that actually play to the alignment and the play style of people who tend to play that alignment. The chaotic neutral "paladin" doesn't need to have some boilerplate "version" of lay on hands, he can do something else more appropriate to his archetype.
I do wonder how spells would work for this, though. 9 different "paladin" spell lists strikes me as:
a) A lot of work.
B) A lot of space in the book for stuff I will never use.
C) Perhaps more trouble than it is worth.
Ideally, IMO, it should be presented similarly to how Monte presented his Champion / Totem-Warrior / Witch classes in Arcana Unearthed.
One class write up (the BAB, saves, number of spells, etc. isn't going to change) and then the specific modifications for each of the options. If it's less alignment based and more diety-Domain-based, that might even simplify things.
For the spell lists, most of the spells would be generic spells usable to any holy warrior, with the alignment specific ones (detect evil, protection from evil, holy smite, etc.) being the only ones that need to be called out as differing by specific 'franchise.'
|
|
My thoughts on Paladins ...
They ABSOLUTELY should remain Lawful Good. (I also agree that the Blackguard, or whatever the new 'anti paladin' ends up being should be Lawful Evil)
They should not be forced to follow a Deity but should instead be able to follow the Lawful Good Ideal, as it were.
They should NOT be spell casters (no divine spells - those are for Clerics, Druids etc)). Instead, they should get various abilities etc to reinforce the 'holy warrior' arch type they were meant to embody.
The special mount should be some sort of idealized, celestial 'horse' that can be summoned and dismissed at will.
Well I agree with the class staying to lawfulness. It's the Paladin's characteristic to live by his code after all. And I believe chaotic deities wouldn't like their followers to live by a code other than be good. A feature that could be enhanced is his mount. It would nice to have a bigger variety as well more enhancements that it gets as the Paladin gains levels. Additionally, it would be nice to see him get few on one hand but very powerful spells on the other. One option could be summoning spells. From the celestial plane if he is of good and from the corresponding evil if he is from LE alignment. Like summoning a blink dog at lower levels or a lammasu, and at high levels devas, planetars, and solars.
|
When I think of paladins, two superheroes come to mind: Superman and Captain America (although it could also be argued that DC's Captain Marvel fits the bill better than Supes, but that's neither here nor there right now). They are the heroes that the other heroes in their respective comic book worlds look up to. Their very presence inspires, simply because they are so uncompromising in their pursuit of Justice, Truth, and the Greater Good for all mankind. That they are not willing to become like the fiends they are sworn to apprehend.Exactly. Remember too that D&D's paladin class is largely inspired by Poul Anderson's novel Three Hearts and Three Lions, whose protagonist is Ogier the Dane is one of the twelve paladins of Charlemagne. Paladins are (roughly) the French equivalents of the Knights of the Round Table and are dedicated to extremely high ideals -- virtue both in battle and in governance.
Good call from both of you. Not to mention that the paladin's roots reach back even further, through the Catholic Church and ending at Palatine Hill in Rome.
Even back then the word referred to someone special, heroic and elite. Palatine Hill was the center of the Roman Empire. It was the mythical location of Romulus and Remus's cave. The Palatini that trained and served there were elite calvary created by Constantine the Great to be his house guard.
It's not a coincidence that Charlemagne's twelve Peers were called paladins, any more than it's a coincidence that some variation of the name had been used over and over for various noble/religious titles and organizations. Charlemagne's Paladins simply have the benefit of being the most famous, because they were a part of popular literature.
When paladins hit 3rd edition, they were watered down and turned into generic holy warriors instead of the paragons of virtue (not specifically religious, although certainly tied strongly to religion) that they once were.
3rd edition already removed the strict physical requirement, the human-only requirement, the higher experience requirements, and the wealth limits. If you take away the alignment restriction then paladins in Pathfinder turn even more into "fighters with divine special abilities instead of feats".
There's nothing special or elite about that.
I have always personally been a huge fan of the Holy warrior class in GR's book of the righteous and I believe that it is already OGL. I do not know if you would want to open up the paladin class this much in the core book, but it does really allow customization in the paladin class almost as much as there is customization in the cleric class. I know in my campaigns I always use this system and it is great for mining ideas out of if I need a dedicated warrior for some god I am creating.
I completely agree. The Book of the Righteous allows for Holy Warriors of all alignments, reserving the name Paladin as the "generic" LG Holy Warrior. This is one of the few non-WotC books that I allow in my campaigns.
-- david
Papa-DRB
Oh well, call me a Gygaxian...
Paladins are LG and that's it...IMHO :-)
And yes other Deities ought to have holy warriors... but only LG holy warriors are Paladins in my poor unimaginitive mindset... evil ones are Blackguards or Hellknights, chaotic good: Holy Liberators, LN: Inquisitors, CN: what the heck does such a fickle deity need with a champion anyway, N: can't think of a good name but these guys are the scariest of all....
I've noticed that a few people are worried about paladins retaining detect evil, and mentioning that it ruins plots. Its funny, because the paladin in my campaign has known that several beings are evil that she is dealing with, but without proof of what they are doing, she can't do anything against them.
Similarly, why is it that because someone in polite society detects as evil, they must be the bad guy? The main use that this ability has for the paladin is for them to know when they can really cut loose on someone. If they are being beset by bandits in the wild, detecting them as evil lets the paladin know that these guys probably aren't Robin and his merry men. In social situations, it lets them know who to keep an eye on, but people can detect as evil long before they do something "smiteworthy." A scummy merchant that is willing to slit the competitions neck, but hasn't yet, is still evil, but until he acts, the paladin can really, in good faith, harm them.
Of course, the paladin in my campaign is big on trying to redeem people that turn up evil if they haven't "slaughtered the younglins" yet.
Also, detect evil isn't "always on," its at will. That means the paladin has to willfully enact the ability, which takes a few seconds, and might, if the person knows that the PC is a paladin, let them know what they are doing. The paladin in my game was chastised by her high priest because she was worried that he may not be on the up and up, and during a conversation, she started staring at him. He knew what she was doing, and asked, "are you looking into my soul? How dare you doubt my devotion?"
Finally, reading the description of the spell, evil is detected in degrees. That merchant that has murderous thoughts is only a "slight" evil. A priest of an evil god is a strong evil most likely, but if they are trying to keep this from becoming public, they, probably more than anyone, know how important having an undetectable alignment ready or some other magical protection against divination.
Honestly, I think that getting rid of divinations that can do things like this only serve to undercut the purpose of divinations in the game in general.
But that's just my opinion.
I totally agree. While the Cleric should be the main supporter, the Paladin should be more of an Avenger or something.
I personally like the Paladin Variants of Unearthed Arcana.
I would make the class open for any non-neutral alignement:
LG (Paladin), CG(Liberator), LE(Tyrant), CE(Conqueror)
and give them Leadership abilities and a constumizable Aura (improving with level)