Is the Paladin a subclass or a main class?

[Olgar Shiverstone]

All of the above.

It really depends on how you define the other classes, and what distinguishes a subclass from a class.

Even the times Paladin has been listed as a subclass in the past, one could argue that it was different enough to be a class; and when it was its own class, one could argue that it was similar enough to be a subclass.

In the scheme of things -- what difference does it make?

 

[Umbran]

The distinction between "class" and "subclass" doesn't itself mean anything. It doesn't matter, except in the context of what you get for being a subclass.

 

[Serendipity]

IMO, ideally, a paladin and a (classical - e.g. first edition AD&D) cleric are the same class, and Priest is a separate class.
Edited to add If anything, a cleric is a specific build/archtype/kit/whatever of the paladin class, which has taken an oath against using edged weapons in order to gain greater spellcasting ability.

 

[Arctic Wolf]

I wanted to thank everyone who has voted so far. It is very useful information .

It depends on what you mean by "paladin" and "cleric" and "warrior" and "class" and "subclass".

In D&D, the paladin is clearly a class, and has been since 1e.

It's also a subclass of fighter in 1e and of warrior in 2e.

Define your terms and hopefully your answer will emerge.

I do have my terms defined, I just wanted to know what everyone else thought to see if I was missing a perspective I didn't think of. Also it has been awhile Jester

 

[GrahamWills]

A paladin is an attitude, not a class -- it would be possible to play a fighter, cleric, monk, knight or ranger as a paladin.

I'd be pretty confident that if you played a standard fighter and told the GM that when you said "I detect evil" he was to make a Sense Motive roll for you and tell you the result as if you were detecting evil, and when you said "Smite Evil" you were doing a power attack, most players would not be able to tell you were not actually a paladin class in at least 3E D&D.

So I'd probably put it in as a prestige class

 

[lutecius]

IMO, ideally, a paladin and a (classical - e.g. first edition AD&D) cleric are the same class, and Priest is a separate class.

Unlikely to happen in D&D but yes, this. I'll add that Paladin or Templar is a better name for this archetype than Cleric.

 

[Nellisir]

It varies by edition. In 2e and earlier, it was just a variant fighter, but in 3e/PF and 4e it's a divine class with abilities that make it distinct from the fighter.

This, for what it's worth. Poll-wise, I'd be tied between subclass of fighter and own class (fighter/priest hybrid).

 

[Dice4Hire]

When thinking of sub-classes or hybrid classes, I look at the four basics. Paladin is not one of those and is not really a sub-class. It is more of a hybrid between CLeric and Fighter. It is a solid class type.

 

[MJS]

If if wears plate mail, swings a claymore, has fighter hp, hit prob, and saving throws, it might be a fighter class.

 

[pemerton]

IMO, ideally, a paladin and a (classical - e.g. first edition AD&D) cleric are the same class, and Priest is a separate class.

<snip>

If anything, a cleric is a specific build/archtype/kit/whatever of the paladin class, which has taken an oath against using edged weapons in order to gain greater spellcasting ability.

Agreed.

Gygax in the AD&D PHB identifies clerics with the military orders - they are fighting brethren. And this is the same archetype as Lancelot, Roland etc on whom the paladin is based. Both classes wear heavy armour, fight with heavy weaponry, have good saves (in the paladin's case, by adding +2 to their fighter saves) and good hit points. Both turn undead, and both can heal by touch (either CLW or LoH).

The only differences between them are purely mechanical - eg the difference between casting a spell and using a class ability - but these differences don't manifest in the fiction in any meaningful way.