At 8th level, a paladin is immune to charm spells and spell-like abilities.
At 17th level, a paladin gains DR 5/evil and immunity to compulsion spells and spell-like abilities.
So no, supernatural charms and compulsions would not work at all. Immunity doesn't care weather its spell, spell like ability, supernatural, or extraordinary.
At 8th level, a paladin is immune to charm spells and spell-like abilities.
At 17th level, a paladin gains DR 5/evil and immunity to compulsion spells and spell-like abilities.
So no, supernatural charms and compulsions would not work at all. Immunity doesn't care weather its spell, spell like ability, supernatural, or extraordinary.
Incorrect. The abilities say "spells and spell-like abilities" which means supernatural and extraordinary work.
Why did they get good will? If I were going to choose a 3.5 class to give a save boost too I can guarantee that it wouldn't be the one with divine grace, especially if I plan to give that class a few new immunities highly related to the save in question. If they had gone through and gave every melee class another good save I might understand, but it's only the paladin.
Paladins are supposed to be these unwavering beacons of all that is good and just. A good will save shows that it is hard to turn a dedicated paladin from their path.
Why improve the paladin's mount? Does it strike anyone else as odd that the paladin's mount is now inarguably better than the same animal type as a druid's animal companion? Alternatively, since the druid does tend to have wider options depending on DM, why does the paladin get a better mount than the dedicated mounted class (cavalier)? The other options that I'm aware of to break into animal companion stuff at levels past 1 (ranger, mounted fury barbarian, and animal domain) all have an effective druid level penalty.
I have no problem with the paladins mount. The druids animal companion is only a part of his power - the majority of his power comes from his full spellcasting. A paladin doesn't have that, and the additional power his mount gets is there to somewhat make up for it. Not to mention that the druids animal companions are generally smaller, and so can go more places. A large mount is limited in where it can reasonably go.
And you shouldn't be asking why a paladin gets a better mount than the cavalier. What you should be asking is "Why does the cavalier get a worse mount than a paladin?" After all, the paladin was there first, and the cavalier should of been based off of that.
At 8th level, a paladin is immune to charm spells and spell-like abilities.
At 17th level, a paladin gains DR 5/evil and immunity to compulsion spells and spell-like abilities.
So no, supernatural charms and compulsions would not work at all. Immunity doesn't care weather its spell, spell like ability, supernatural, or extraordinary.
As Talynonyx pointed out, that is wrong. Spells and Spell-like abilities are specific game terms. They do not apply to supernatural abilities.
Compare the wording of those abilities to the elves immunities. Elves are immune to all sleep effects, so that is immunity to any type of sleep power whether it is spell, spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary. The paladins immunities don't say "effect", they say "spell or spell-like ability".
At 8th level, a paladin is immune to charm spells and spell-like abilities.
At 17th level, a paladin gains DR 5/evil and immunity to compulsion spells and spell-like abilities.
So no, supernatural charms and compulsions would not work at all. Immunity doesn't care weather its spell, spell like ability, supernatural, or extraordinary.
As Talynonyx pointed out, that is wrong. Spells and Spell-like abilities are specific game terms. They do not apply to supernatural abilities.
Compare the wording of those abilities to the elves immunities. Elves are immune to all sleep effects, so that is immunity to any type of sleep power whether it is spell, spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary. The paladins immunities don't say "effect", they say "spell or spell-like ability".
yeah, i realised that with his post. thanks for saying it again.
yeah, i realised that with his post. thanks for saying it again.
I just wanted to make it a little clearer why it works that way.
|
Compare the wording of those abilities to the elves immunities. Elves are immune to all sleep effects, so that is immunity to any type of sleep power whether it is spell, spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary. The paladins immunities don't say "effect", they say "spell or spell-like ability".
Sadly, the example you give is wrong.
Elven Immunities: Elves are immune to magic sleep effects
Which is why drow use sleep poison even in their interhouse fights, the poison still affects elves.
yea, I suppose the cavalier is supposed to be the mounted warrior, more than the paladin it seems to be a trademark, thus even more weird it is weaker. I think it comes from an attempt to make the cavalier some kind of non-magical class based on the 3.5 edition knight, non-magial / non-divine inspired.
I think they got a bit carried away with the paladin to be honest, it is probably that have to be lawful good / code thing that needs compensating so it just got a bit better allround than other classes.
My example is only half wrong. I wasn't talking about the magic part of the elves immunity to sleep effects, but the effect part. If there happened to be some sort of mundane sleep effect, the elf would be affected by it. (But the only sleep effect I can think of is the Sleep and Deep Slumber spells. As far as I know, there is no mundane sleep effect.) If it says "effects" it applies to all types of abilities (Spell-like, Supernatural, or Extraordinary or spells), but if it specifies certain types of abilities then those are the only ones affected.
And as meowstef said, drow poison is not a sleep effect, it causes unconsciousness. There is a difference. (You can slap someone under a sleep effect to break them out of it, but not unconscious effects.)