Thought: Paladin be Guardian, Paladin be prestige / archetype

[Zwordsman]

Howdy.

So. I was looking at things, mutli class and the class itself...

I really feel like the base class of Paladin should be altered to become something similar to Stalwart Defender, and specialize in defense and defender their allies. They could get something along the lines of BodyGuard feats and such.

The dedication is already about defenses-not paladin like stuff.

Fact is, Paladin is painfuly restricted. What if someone wants to be a defender but not be lawful good?

Additionally what the Paladin brings to the table is relatively limited. I really do feel like they would work better the way Cavalier does, A prestige/archetype that gives them the paladin stuff from a relatively early level.

Just curious what other people think about this. There are plenty of aspects of Paladins that aren't intrinically "Paladin" but are useful for a "defender" but it is just so heavily restricted RP wise that it destroys so many ideas and causes other things to feel just strange. Really feel like having a strong prestige dedication line would be good and make the concept of paladin more real to me. It would also allow it to open up being based out of other classes. It would help represent a journey to being one. I imagine most aren't born into paladin families and all.

[Meowvelous]

On top of other aspects, a lot of iconic Paladin abilities in 1e also came past first level, which seems like something that would translate well to a Cavalier style setup.

Having it be an Archetype like Cavaliers are also opens up more options for paladins themselves, being able to be a Cleric-Paladin or Fighter-Paladin and so on, without needing to set aside the concept of a tanky defender class/multiclass for just lawful good characters.

[HWalsh]

Please stop with the Lawful Good hate.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

HWalsh wrote:

Please stop with the Lawful Good hate.

Because the best defensive class in the game has to be left behind an alignment wall, and anyone who disagrees with it is a hater? Antipaladins exist, this argument is invalid as a result.

[HWalsh]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Please stop with the Lawful Good hate.

Because the best defensive class in the game has to be left behind an alignment wall, and anyone who disagrees with it is a hater? Antipaladins exist, this argument is invalid as a result.

Paladin isnt the best defensive class in the game.

Yes, they are tied for the highest armor proficiency (see Grey Maiden) but the actual best defensive class is... Fighter!

Yes, lower proficiency, but easy access to free shield raise (paladin doesn't get) and more reactions to enable blocking (paladin doesn't get) a Fighter will generally always have a higher AC than a Paladin and likely a higher KAC.

[Paradozen]

They're really more tied with fighter than anything.

Fighters have an action advantage with shields. A better reflex save. Some more shield-related tricks (some of which are actually good). A better baseline resistance to fear. The ability to punish enemies for moving through their threatened squares.

Paladins have better shields. A better will save. Healing. Better AC unless they can't be bothered to raise a shield. Condition removal options. Better save options. The ability to punish enemies for attacking nearby allies. The option to punish enemies for moving through their threatened squares. The option to take damage for allies. Some other holy shield related tricks (some of which are actually good).

Not all of these abilities are matched 1 to 1, but I'd argue they are tied. Paladins are better at providing defense for their allies IMO (since they can take more damage for their allies, and fix their allies back up mid-fight), but fighters are pretty close and have some nice abilities to protect themselves and a small taste of protecting their allies.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

HWalsh wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Please stop with the Lawful Good hate.

Because the best defensive class in the game has to be left behind an alignment wall, and anyone who disagrees with it is a hater? Antipaladins exist, this argument is invalid as a result.

Paladin isnt the best defensive class in the game.

Yes, they are tied for the highest armor proficiency (see Grey Maiden) but the actual best defensive class is... Fighter!

Yes, lower proficiency, but easy access to free shield raise (paladin doesn't get) and more reactions to enable blocking (paladin doesn't get) a Fighter will generally always have a higher AC than a Paladin and likely a higher KAC.

Shields aren't the be-all end-all of defenses. At most it gives you 2 extra AC that doesn't stack with cover or screening. Paladins have Lay on Hands and plenty of ways to buff it, have based ways to improve their shields in ways that Fighters could never match, and are all-around a better and more versatile class. Heck, the reason Paladins don't really have smite is because, like in PF1, it's overkill.

On top of that, any shield bonus the Fighter gains is negated by the Paladin's proficiency.

[Zwordsman]

I probably wouldn't include Grey Maiden in the conversation.
it starts what.. lv 8? (or am I miss remembering?) I'm also still not sure if its female characters only for that prestige-sorta sounds like it but I keep forgetting to look at the restriction. That'd be a RP limiter as well. But. I think RP limiters on Prestige or special dedication lines are good if not really amusing for character growth.

I was thinking a lower start entry similar to Cavalier.

I love the defensive idea but I dislike the RP restrictions and the innate baggage that comes with "being a paladin." I do not inherently disilke it--But-- if you are one you really do have to play in a certain way.

(sidenote. I really do wish Paladins just had a "follow your own code" not a specific world's culture code or a god's code. the only paladin I played in 1E was the one who had a weird set of standards)

I really think there are spaces for fighters, guardians, and barbarians without really much of any overlap

and I personally love the idea of Paladin being a dedication line because that would allow for flavor growth of character to follow mechanical wants and the like.
Plus... I think its far more realisitc that you could have a paladin who used to be a cleric, or used to be a rogue who turned a new leaf, or a barbarian from the wastes who found a reason, or even an arcane who spent their lives believing in themselves but changed a new leaf after some RP experience.

It would make balancing perhaps weirder. But I think that would make for a more dynamic world and not a "well.. all paladin are X and nothing else"

but maybe I'm weird in that I want a more varied example of "lore jobs" and more open ended base classes to allow for a variety of RP lore.

[Tectorman]

Making the base class into a more open-concept Guardian, though hopefully retaining a good deal of the supernatural abilities alongside the defensive focus, while relegating the Paladin to an archetype would do a good job of letting those RP restrictions be something a player can buy into (rather than being just imposed) and would help stop all the selfish hating being perpetuated on "behalf" of the so-called Lawful Good.

Alternatively, the LG doesn't need to leave the class, just exist alongside a "Fury Totem" equivalent for all the players that aren't interested in the oppressive baggage.

[The Once and Future Kai]

I'd rather have Stalwart Defender/Guardian as an Archetype than Paladin. But I agree that a non-divine option is needed.

[Nox Aeterna]

Has before, on this, I agree with HWalsh. Paladin must be a Paladin which is a core class, a LG core class.

Ofc, people gave their feedback during the survey, i wonder what the numbers have shown the devs and what, if any, changes will come from it.

[Vidmaster7]

My thought was to split the paladin into 2 different classes. a knight which would be the armor master/ defender and a paladin which would keep some of the abilities and maybe gain some outsider style stuff too (someone suggested the outsider thing on another thread and I like the idea. )

[The Once and Future Kai]

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Has before, on this, I agree with HWalsh. Paladin must be a Paladin which is a core class, a LG core class.

I'd be okay with Paladin as an Archetype but as long as alignment is in the game I agree it should remain LG.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

My thought was to split the paladin into 2 different classes. a knight which would be the armor master/ defender and a paladin which would keep some of the abilities and maybe gain some outsider style stuff too (someone suggested the outsider thing on another thread and I like the idea. )

I like this. Open up the class to fit a wider variety of character types.

[LordVanya]

I'm for converting the current Paladin class into a Knight or whatever.

Given how a lot of people have talked about Paladins in defense of LG only, I'd say having them be a Prestige Archetype makes the most sense.

For the sake of accessibility, a regular Archetype would work too.

Either way, it could work out to be easier than revamping the entire thing into a Knight with alignment based Codes.

[RazarTuk]

Yep. In my opinion, the single biggest issue with the Paladin class right now is the name.

The existing Paladin works really well as a guardian sort of class. And that's saying something, because you can't really draw aggro in a TTRPG like you can in a MOBA, so it's more difficult to make a proper tank, and yet the class pulls the role off well.

Catch is, that isn't what people think when they hear Paladin. Ignoring all the stereotypes of being sticks in the mud, when people hear "Paladin", they hear "holy warrior". The sort of character that proactively fights against injustice, before anyone close to them can be hurt. It's why the PF 1e smite feels more satisfying than the 3.5 smite, because you can declare something your holy mark to lay down swift judgement upon them. Meanwhile, Retributive Strike is reactionary. You can only smite something in response to them hitting your allies. It just feels substantially different.

And, of course, the LG requirement. We've even moved past always-lawful monks, to the point that only clerics and paladins have alignment requirements anymore. With the former, you still have the choice of deity to theoretically play any alignment, as long as you worship an appropriate god. I don't think there's room anymore for a single-alignment class, and that the Paladin would be better suited as a Prestige Archetype. (And leaving the current class behind as a Guardian class for any alignment)

[Zwordsman]

LordVanya wrote:

For the sake of accessibility, a regular Archetype would work too.

I would point out that in this edition the phrase Prestige doesn't carry any of the specific baggage of the previous one.

Sure the Maiden prestige does start at 8, but nothing specifically forces prestige classes to start so high.
The pirate dedication starts earlier, as does cavalier, although I do not remember if they are prestige-probably not.

but nothing prevents it. I think Prestige as a term only indicates limiting how many prestige a class could have in general?

So no reason a Paladin prestige couldn't start at lv 2 or 4.
And in fact, I really do think most prestiges should open up fairly early.

I'd like the prestige to come with more holy warrior/avenger powers.
The paladin class currently just screams protector with powers not holy warrior.

Plus with the way weapon use works and such now.
It would be easier, and honestly pretty cool to have paladins who were alchemists and brought those skills to the profession, or who were wizards and use their arcane knowledge for "good" or a barbarian from the wastes who had a holy encounter changing their view of the world.

Paladin shouldn't be a stock stick in the mud we all play the same.
making it a prestige could make paladin's diverse, interesting, weird.

[The Once and Future Kai]

Zwordsman wrote:

Paladin shouldn't be a stock stick in the mud we all play the same. making it a prestige could make paladin's diverse, interesting, weird.

It's exciting just thinking about it. The Paladin Rogue (left behind a life of crime for a righteous life) or the Paladin Alchemist (search for the perfect theorem lead to Celestia).

[RazarTuk]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

the Paladin Alchemist (search for the perfect theorem lead to Celestia)

Just don't try bringing your dead mom back to life, or anything. We all know where that leads...

[The Once and Future Kai]

RazarTuk wrote:

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

the Paladin Alchemist (search for the perfect theorem lead to Celestia)

Just don't try bringing your dead mom back to life, or anything. We all know where that leads...

Half Golem ancestry Heritage? That sounds awesome.

[Charon Onozuka]

I'd be for this. An strict restriction to 1/9th of the available alignments feels like something more suited for an archetype rather than a full class (& means that future antipaladin/freedom would be archetypes as well rather than bloated full classes). Not to mention that even in 1E I've seen arguments into making Paladins a prestige class rather than just something a character starts out as. Also could be a good way to bring back more classic Paladin abilities (like Smite) without it feeling broken.

As for the new base class, I could see it as being a guardian/knight. But I could also see it as going the other way and doubling down on being a martial-oriented follower of a deity, particularly one that focused on improving their deity's favored weapon (since not every devote follower of a deity should be a full caster and/or have high WIS).

[Kyrand]

I've been thinking of something similar, but taking it a step further. Remove both Fighter and Paladin, and replace them with the Champion and the Guardian, respectively. The Guardian is defense oriented, with better armor proficiencies, etc., while the Champion is offense based. Each class could have a "Holy Warrior" series of class feats, which makes having religious\alignment ties optional.

This would also leave design room later for class feat series based on the other kinds of magic (barbarian totems shouldn't get all the fun).

[Wolfism]

Yes to all of this. A knight class is probably the closest in making convention to the rest of the Pathfinder classes and when you add the paladin archetype would really feel like the paladin of old.

This would let you make a holy war mage smiting enemies of their god with holy fire or a sneaky Inquisitor based on the ranger or rogue.