Paladins Should Not Cast Spells

[Incenjucar]

You can skin divine spells however you like, yet I world argue that in a world where magic is not an infrequent occurrence (which is the default assumption) , most spells do not count as miracles. Technically a miracle is direct involvement by the Divine into the mundane world, causing what is not possible, to be possible.

Spells are very 'Possible', even in the Default D&D setting.

Using a deity as a Vancian spellbook just feels very undivine to me.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think paladins should cast spells but I think they should be limited in nature and not just be cleric spells.

I also think that should cast them like sorcerers and not have to pick spells. Since their spells are divine in nature why should they not have the spell they need right now.

 

[tuxgeo]

Not yet mentioned in this thread (unless it was, and I missed it ):

Third E's "Special Mount (Sp)" feature -- the Paladin gets the services of an unusually wonderful mount that normally resides in the celestial realm: either a warhorse or a war pony, as appropriate. (Sort of like a Cavalier?)

I would prefer that the Paladin's spellcasting (if any) be spontaneous, but with a chance of failure -- as if to say, "Your god isn't granting that at this time."

 

[Elf Witch]

Not yet mentioned in this thread (unless it was, and I missed it ):

Third E's "Special Mount (Sp)" feature -- the Paladin gets the services of an unusually wonderful mount that normally resides in the celestial realm: either a warhorse or a war pony, as appropriate. (Sort of like a Cavalier?)

I would prefer that the Paladin's spellcasting (if any) be spontaneous, but with a chance of failure -- as if to say, "Your god isn't granting that at this time."

Here is my issue with spell failure. The paladin has been faithful and a good servant to his god. He needs that spell to save his or someone else life or to complete an important mission. So why does his god choose that moment to be a dick?

The story teller in me just screams in agony over this.

 

[am181d]

One of my favorite things about 3.5 is the option to swap out class abilities. (And I gather that Pathfinder has something along those lines in their Advanced Player's Guide.)

I'm not hopeful, but I really wish they'd build ability trees into 5e. In that scenario, you could accomodate people who like Paladin spellcasters AND people who don't by just giving a swap out option.

 

[Anguirus]

^ I think that's how it's gonna be, but f I howl enough maybe there will be some meaty options?

Given that we do not even know what "casting spells" truly means at this point,

Yeah we do. C'mon, you are reading the same things I am. The innovation of 5E is that it's modular and is designed to appeal to stalwarts of all editions. Well in all editions but one, spellcasting works one certain way. And everything we are getting out of WotC sounds very conservative...well, technically regressive, because it's clear that they are responding to the Pathfinder market and being heavily inspired by 3E. And that's great, but they don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. 3.5 expansions absolutely murdered the idea that magic classes all have to use spells like wizards. And with that established, the paladin archetype is a very strong candidate for an alternate system.

Hell, if I had the time, energy, and inclination to make some sort of heavily houseruled 3E-based game, I'd gut the paladin and make it look more like a Warlock (but balanced to have full BAB and very different SLAs) or a Swordsage.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

I'd prefer my 5e paladin have access to spells in addition to his granted powers.

If WOTC wants me to play a 5e ranger, he better be getting back his spell abilities too.

 

[FireLance]

When you cast a spell, you do some combination of waving your hands, rubbing your holy symbol, and barking out nonsense.

...

I propose to limit the mechanical similarities between paladin and cleric. There's no compelling reason other than inertia that a fighter/cleric and a paladin should play similarly at all, aside from making a lot of attacks and praying to god a lot out of combat.

Spellcasting is a thematically formulaic style of magic, and there's no reason any longer to restrict PC magic to spellcasting. It doesn't fit the holy knight.

So if I read you right, you're equating spellcasting with implement use and the pre-4e trappings of verbal and somatic components?

In that case, a paladin who can channel holy power through his sword to smite his enemies is okay, but one who calls out to his deity to bless his weapon at the start of a fight is not?

What about at-will prayers that enhance his fighting ability (say, granting a bonus to attack rolls or damage rolls or AC)? What if they were mechanically similar to Essentials fighter stances in that the paladin only has to pray once (with a minor action) and he continues to enjoy the benefit until he "switches" blessings with another prayer (and another minor action)?

How would you distinguish between a lay on hands ability that can be used once per day and a cure X wounds spell? Would it be on the basis that one requires a verbal prayer, somatic gestures and a holy symbol, and the other does not?

 

[Li Shenron]

I am very undecided...

The 3ed Paladin had many magic abilities and spells, this was OK for me.

On one hand, ad-hoc magic abilities may sound more "cool" than vancian spells. On the other hand, spells are a little easier to design since they follow some standard format, and give both some versatility (because you can change which ones to prepare on different quests) and some differentiation between characters (one Paladin typically preparing certain spells, another preparing different ones).

I am also undecided on whether it is a good thing for Paladins to know all spells on their list. I am against it for Clerics and Druids because they're too many, but Paladin's and Ranger's spells are but a few so the issue is not a big deal.

 

[Klaus]

There is also the issue of drawing the line between a spellcasting Paladin and a Fighter/Cleric (remember when the 3e UA presented Paladin, Ranger and Bard as prestige classes?).