Paladins Should Not Cast Spells

[Klaus]

My first D&D character ever was a Paladin (rolled straight up! Charisma 17!), and I agree with the OP. I'd prefer it if Paladins got special abilities and resistances, but couldn't otherwise cast spells.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For characters, magic is not the same thing as spellcasting!

I think you're right on this point.

My first 4E character was a dwarf paladin who dumped Charisma. Bad idea? Probably. But he wasn't one for flash, and he sure as heck didn't rub his holy symbol, wave his arms, yell nonsense, and then check off a spell for the day.

So what's my point? After all in 4E all characters were "spellcasters" right? Yes, but in 4E, for the very first time, I saw a paladin who could not, EVER, be mistaken for a fighter/cleric.

The paladin does not deserve to exist if it can be mistaken for a fighter/cleric.

Not so sure I agree with you here. Fighter and Cleric are both pretty broad archetypes, and so encompass a lot of different similar kinds of combos. And there's nothing wrong with a paladin who is kind of a fighter/cleric, either, IMO. They should have their own thing (smites and whatnot), but I don't see why they have to be very different, or even how your dwarf paladin was really all that different a dwarf cleric (or warlord or fighter or...) that did the same thing. I mean, it sounds like you had fun, which is the main thing, but it's not clear to me how paladin powers not being the same as cleric spells helped you have fun.

Spells aren't part of the paladin archetype.

Well, divine magic clearly is. And cleric spells like removing disease, healing wounds, removing curses, calling divine fire, protecting your allies, etc. are all part of that pool of abilities.

But I think I'm generally on board with your broader point. I don't necessarily need "Vancian paladins." I think there are other mechanical ways to represent that. I'd even expand it -- not every spellcaster needs to be Vancian. Warlocks are a great example: I love their entirely at-will arsenal. Psionics are another. Paladins can be, too.

I do think that a paladin needs to be able to accomplish some of what a cleric can accomplish via the cleric's divine magic, and the simplest way to do that is probably just to give them a few cleric spells. But I am all for exploring alternate mechanical ways to exemplify classes. About the only class I think might NEED to be Vancian -- at least for the sake of the sacred cow if nothing else -- is the wizard.

 

[Minigiant]

While I don't mind paladins casts spells, I prefer them not to.

I prefer them to be more like wingless angels with a sword instead of a halo.

 

[Incenjucar]

While I don't mind paladins casts spells, I prefer them not to.

I prefer them to be more like wingless angels with a sword instead of a halo.

This is pretty much my view.

 

[Gryph]

I sort of agree in that the Paladin can be adequately archtyped with some non-spell divine powers (Lay on Hands, Turn Undead, forex.); but; I would honestly prefer that they would have the limited access to a limited set of spells that was part of the class for the majority of D&D's life.

 

[Anguirus]

Not so sure I agree with you here. Fighter and Cleric are both pretty broad archetypes, and so encompass a lot of different similar kinds of combos. And there's nothing wrong with a paladin who is kind of a fighter/cleric, either, IMO. They should have their own thing (smites and whatnot), but I don't see why they have to be very different, or even how your dwarf paladin was really all that different a dwarf cleric (or warlord or fighter or...) that did the same thing. I mean, it sounds like you had fun, which is the main thing, but it's not clear to me how paladin powers not being the same as cleric spells helped you have fun.

Because I finally felt like I was playing a paladin to be a butt-kicking holy warrior, not
1) a fighter who was rewarded for rolling good stats
2) a cleric who needs to split his attentions between buffing, healing, and butt-kicking

As I tried to express, it made the paladin appealing to me where it wasn't before. Not here to argue that you can't have fun with absolutely anything.

And considering I like "Vancian" clerics, you might actually be more radical than me. (I definitely want there to be options though, it's totally fair to want to play a magical priest who doesn't "memorize" anything.)

 

[Incenjucar]

Paladins (and, really, divine anything) might actually be a good candidate for a "power points" system. Call them "Graces" or something. They have so much pull with their deity based on the situation (bloodied, bloodied allies, etc), and they can call upon a certain amount of that, either for healing or for smiting.

Memorizing miracles is just so... weird.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Not to put too fine a point on it... but nobody in 4E cast spells except the Arcane classes. Spells were only the province of the Arcane power source. The paladin and other characters of the Divine source made prayers.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I know such a system has it's problems, but I'm kind of partial to a "roll for successful casting" system for divine spells. Can you cast Cure Light Wounds today? Well, ask your god and find out.

You'd need to radically re-jigger the system to accommodate it, and then it would still feel like gambling, but I am still fond of how that mechanic replicates the idea that not every wish is granted.

Because I finally felt like I was playing a paladin to be a butt-kicking holy warrior, not
1) a fighter who was rewarded for rolling good stats
2) a cleric who needs to split his attentions between buffing, healing, and butt-kicking

As I tried to express, it made the paladin appealing to me where it wasn't before.

:shrug: Butt-kicking holy warrior sounds a lot like a chunk of clerics, fighters, barbarians, druids, ninjas, rogues...well, I've seen a lot of different folks fill that archetype!

But still, it's a quibble. I like the idea of different mechanics for divine magic, or for each class, or whatever. But I'm a mechanics glutton. I'm maybe not convinced it's as necessary as you seem to think it is, but I'd still like you to get your way, at least as an option.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm okay with paladin's casting spells. I'm not really okay with how it's been done in previous editions. It's always really struck me as the Paladin being the backup fighter and the suck-cleric. Nothing the Paladin could cast was really all that great, most of it could be cast by others, and better. Smite Evil came in handy oh....like once for me because I generally participate in campaigns that aren't so hot on clearly making everything follow the 9-alignment system.

A Paladin SHOULD have divine power backing him up. I quite simply cannot picture a paladin without some form of divine empowerment. Well, I can, but it's called a Fighter.

I'm okay with a paladin not casting spells if the idea of being a divinely powered warrior can be successfully integrated. However, I think some things are just too staple to eliminate. Lay on Hands for example, I can't really call a class a Paladin without this. Maybe that's the only only power they get without certain training or special feats.

I like the idea of aura's. A paladin is a crusader of some cause to the point that just being around them makes you feel slicker than a pick in poop. And they're not really a feature many other classes utilize.

So if I had to nail down what makes a Paladin a Paladin It'd be this:
High Attack Bonus/damage
Heavy armor
Lay on Hands
Smite
Auras

If those things are all that Paladins get and those things just keep getting better throughout the game, I can live with that. But I simply can't see a Paladin having no divine power, you can't dress a fighter up in gold armor and call them a Paladin, just ain't gonna cut it.