Paladins in 3.5, why?

This is a discussion thread used to debate one thing, should the Paladin core class be changed to a prc and replaced with a more versitile holy warrior class? This discussion is based off logical game information only, using rules and roleplaying as a guide. Thus, no arguements such as "But it has always been that way." or "More people want it to stay this way."

With that out of the way, here is my principle argument:

I think that paladins should be made into prcs because they have one of the most strict alignment and code system for any class in the game. Core classes are designed to handle a wide spectrum of different characters. Except for a few minor details, one paladin is just like every other paladin in this world. The paladin only allows for one type of character, not a variety. This is not what a core class is, but instead is the kind of specialist thing which prcs are made of.

Definitely PRC. I've been arguing this for years.

No replacement class, either. If you want to play a "holy warrior", you should play a Fighter who has a religion. Or a Cleric. Or a Fighter/Cleric, and qualify for that nifty "Paladin" prestige class.

The abilities, restrictions, and Code of Honor all scream "Prestige Class". There's just no need for the class as a base class.

-z

It's definetely true that if we completely ignore everything that has ever happened in the past, and all concept of D&D flavor, then yes it would make sense to move paladin into a prestige class. Although replacing it would probably be unnecesary, clerics work perfectly well as holy warriors, and prestige classes could be used for anything that clerics don't cover.

Many of us however consider D&D flavor and consistancy quite important. There are many things that have no other reason then this for existing. They could just as easily say that elves no longer need to have pointy ears, they are just generic dexterous skinny who can look however you want them to. That would certainly fit into more campaign worlds. Similarly dwarves could just be tough dour people who could look however the player wanted, or however the DM felt they should. In fact really every class except fighter, rogue, cleric and mage could be a prestige class, and I'm not even sure about rogue. This would all certainly make things easier to adapt and more generic, but I'm not sure it would make for a better game.

Trying to discuss an issue while saying you can only use the points that support your cause, but not the points that detract from it is probably not going to be very productive.

I agree that the Paladin should be a PrCl

Or a Multi-classed Fighter/Cleric.

PrC. Of course, I played OD&D for the longest time, where it was a "prestige class." In other words, in D&D (not AD&D) once your fighter reached 9th level, he could choose to become a paladin, avenger (kind of like a blackguard) or a knight. To take advantage of the perks associated with those, he/she had to meet criteria that were campaign-based, no mechanics based, but still, it was what you might call a prestige class.

Incidentally, I forget which one, but one of the 3.0 designers argued for PrC paladin but it was decided that paladin as a core class was a "sacred cow" so it better be left that way. He posted on his web page his stats for a PrC paladin, as he would have done it if it were his choice.

Except for a few minor details, one paladin is just like every other paladin in this world. The paladin only allows for one type of character, not a variety.

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree.

It is more restrictive than other classes, yes, but it's not a rigid mold of Full-Plate-Heavy-Lance-Damsels-in-Distress.

Particularly when multiclassing is taken into account.

I've played Paladins and Paladin multiclasses to the stereotype and against the stereotype in several different ways. Still Lawful Good, still following the Code, but otherwise completely different.

-Hyp.

First of all, what more do we need, if the majority of the players of the product want it this way?

Second, let's remember that the concept of the holy warrior has always been around in fantasy, even from the tales of Lancelot and before.

There is an archetype, and that very archetype is as early as the Maiden Jehanne: Joan of Arc. This is the archetype of the "called warrior," the warrior that has been called by their deity to go forth and accomplish a specific mission. These are not necessarily spellcasters, but they are usually considered tougher than ordinary beings, and exceptionally lucky in some way. Depending on who you ask, this type extends through Chronicles of Narnia in the form of Aslan, and even into the Lord of the Rings.

However, these people were not just called later in life; they were often called in their youth, at a time roughly equating to first level. Taing this option away invalidates a very good roleplaying experience, that of the called warrior.

DO I believe they should open the class? Probably so. In a pantheistic society, there is more than just Lawful Good to aspire to. Each god should indeed have a holy warrior option for their champions. The Forgotten Realms design team solved this with the Champion five level prestige class, but it is still not the optimal solution, in my opinion.

IMO...

Paladins are really stereo-typed. The only actual rule I find restrictive is the one that says you can't lie. I think it's stupid that a paladin can "withhold information" and yet not lie. Really, a half-truth is the worst kind of lie.

But...

Becoming a paladin should involve proving yourself, IMO, hence a prestige class. Having said that, it's up to the player. Some players can roleplay a young paladin quite well.

Definately PRC. Its the only core class with one and only one "code of conduct," the only core class that allows one and only one alignment, and there's the multiclass restriction on top of that.

Of course you can play a "different" type of paladin- meaning you can use different armor and weapons... but that's about it.

Really, a half-truth is the worst kind of lie.

Click to expand...

Heh. I've heard it described as the best kind of lie.

And I think they meant the same thing you do

-Hyp.