Fallen paladins

[Arkhandus]

Yes, my opinion was largely similar to yours. And others'. I wouldn't be rambly if I just said "ditto."

Also, you were suggesting giving some temporary feats like a fighter's, then taking them away as soon as he atones. Which is, technically, a bit less simple and doesn't really make sense IC; how does the ex-paladin "fighter" just forget half of the skillful maneuvers he learned earlier, as soon as he atones and becomes a paladin again? Or suddenly learns them right after losing his paladinhood earlier?

It is simpler to just have some paladin levels to start with (maybe with a few levels of fighter as well, depending on how far back in his backstory he lost his paladinhood and started to need more combat practice rather than relying on divine boons to protect him), advance as a fighter during play, then do some retraining or the like via the PHB2 options as soon as he atones. Although he might lose the fighter bonus feats when he converts those fighter levels to paladin levels, it'll probably be more gradual and less sudden, as he resumes his old regimen of daily prayers and other observances and paladinish duties to avoid falling from grace again. As opposed to *pop* "Woohoo, just atoned and got all my mojo back! And......just forgot how to chop two goblins in half at the same time with my greatsword.....?"

 

[Dandu]

This seems to be an archetype that D&D does not support well. Perhaps he should be a Crusader who does not have access to the more "divine" maneuvers, which he regains access to after atoning, and can retrain his maneuvers afterwards?

 

[Visigani]

Just let him take ex paladin levels.

you're the DM, you can do whatever you want.

Then when he redeems himself, give him all the class features.

 

[Dandu]

I would advise against letting him have ex-paladin levels. For those levels in which he is a fallen paladin, he will essentially be a Warrior. You know, that NPC class that was never meant for PCs to play because its only function is to die to prove how serious the situation has gotten.

This can't be good for him or the party as they now have to drag around The Load.

 

[Visigani]

I would advise against letting him have ex-paladin levels. For those levels in which he is a fallen paladin, he will essentially be a Warrior. You know, that NPC class that was never meant for PCs to play because its only function is to die to prove how serious the situation has gotten.

This can't be good for him or the party as they now have to drag around The Load.

He should be paying a burden for BEING a fallen paladin. He shouldn't just get to magically swap out the fighter levels he took because it's convenient. Yes, there are rules for it, but those rules tend to require a very significant investment in and of itself. Further wasting the parties time.

Him being an ex pally for a level or two won't destroy the world.

 

[Dandu]

Oh, lord no. There's no way a PC being a Warrior will destroy the world. My concern is with him destroying himself.

Let's face it, a Warrior can't handle the same challenges a PC could; that's why they're an NPC class. Putting a Warrior in a party of normal PCs would probably introduce a disparity akin to putting a monk in a party of three druids.

To advance by a level, you usually fight several encounters. If you go by the CR guidelines, it's 13 CR appropriate encounters... less obviously if you throw out stronger monsters, more if you use weaker ones.

Pitting a Warrior against enemies he can't take on a dozen times seems like it would kill him eventually. The obvious solution is to softball encounters for the Warrior (while retaining tougher opponents for the rest of the party?) which just seems... anticlimactic?

You clearly feel that by reducing the difficulty he faces, it cheapens the significance of him being a fallen paladin seeking redemption. I don't think that, under this assumption, softballing would be appropriate either.

I am in favor of allowing this "fallen paladin" to be something else other than a Paladin, in much the same way that a samurai does not have to be a Samurai, if you get my meaning.

 

[Visigani]

Oh, lord no. There's no way a PC being a Warrior will destroy the world. My concern is with him destroying himself.

Let's face it, a Warrior can't handle the same challenges a PC could; that's why they're an NPC class. Putting a Warrior in a party of normal PCs would probably introduce a disparity akin to putting a monk in a party of three druids.

To advance by a level, you usually fight several encounters. If you go by the CR guidelines, it's 13 CR appropriate encounters... less obviously if you throw out stronger monsters, more if you use weaker ones.

Pitting a Warrior against enemies he can't take on a dozen times seems like it would kill him eventually. The obvious solution is to softball encounters for the Warrior (while retaining tougher opponents for the rest of the party?) which just seems... anticlimactic?

You clearly feel that by reducing the difficulty he faces, it cheapens the significance of him being a fallen paladin seeking redemption. I don't think that, under this assumption, softballing would be appropriate either.

I am in favor of allowing this "fallen paladin" to be something else other than a Paladin, in much the same way that a samurai does not have to be a Samurai, if you get my meaning.

And that's the point. To make being a fallen paladin difficult. Further, the length of time he remains a fallen paladin AND the challenges he and his team faces are entirely up to the DM.

If the DM can't manage to temper the challenges in consideration of this ex paladin he should study up more on it.

 

[Dandu]

But if he's tempering the challenges...

Well, let's just say that Herakles isn't renowned for slaying the Nemean Sheep.

I favor giving the PC a different class because it allows him to do stuff other than wiffing at weak enemies, which might be fun for the player.

 

[Ashtagon]

Let him take levels as a crusader, if you like ToB.

or:

Set his paladin abilities as if he had N fewer paladin levels than he actually does. Each time he levels up, raise his effective paladin level by 1-3 levels (this includes the effective level gain from taking a level of paladin), depending on how well he has been redeeming himself over the last few adventures.

 

[Herzog]

I think some of you are missing the point.

The character in question STARTED play as a fallen paladin (probably because he or the DM thought it was cool)

Yes, you can postpone taking a level. However, once you gain enough XP to gain TWO levels, excess XP would be lost. (I think. You can't gain two levels at once, or at least, that's what I seem to remember.)

Gaining levels in ex-paladin would be strange, but given the facts, acceptable I think.
However, realise the character will be underpowered for his level (as others have stated before) and will not be able to pull his (full) weight in the party.

Gaining levels in another class (like fighter) and training those away later would at the very least give him back some power, although officially you can only retrain one level each time you gain a level. (so three levels of fighter gained after level 13 could be retrained at level 17, 18 and 19.
So his progression would become: ex-Paladin(xP)13/Figher(F)1->xp13/F2->xP13/F3->P15/F2->P17/F1->P19

There are also some paladin-like prestige classes that only require you to be Lawfull, and allow you to be Neutral. Maybe those are an option?