Smite as the signature move of Paladins.

[underfoot007ct]

Weren't there also assassins? Anyone arguing we need all OD&D classes?
This was also before the idea of themes and such (there was a humanoid paladin fighter theme in AD&D 2nd). Broadening possible uses and abilities of classes lessens the need for special classes for every slight ability change.

Sorry for stealing the thread, but yes I want Monks, Assassins, & Druids, Bards too. All the OD&D classes, and hopefully a few more as well.

 

[Walking Dad]

Paladin has been a class in most editions of D&D. There are many of us that want it as a class in 5e as well.

So, it is just the name you need? With all other aspects there?

And you need a rules-disadvantage to keep your Code of Conduct, you cannot keep it just it is what the character would do?

 

[underfoot007ct]

Um... so? Gygax might not have agreed with my thoughts on American Foreign Policy, either. But that means as little to me as what he'd think of my ideas on Paladins. Gary Gygax may have been instrumental in creating D&D way back when, but that was way back when. Things change.

The Paladin has no need to be a separate class anymore, since all it's become is a higher BAB version of the Cleric, with smite and weaker magic. There's no such thing as BAB anymore, and the Cleric has smite. You can easily model a Paladin using a Cleric now, which makes the Paladin obsolete. It doesn't matter what Gygax thought, it matters the way things stand now.

It absolutely does, if you wanted to play a Fighter/cleric in 1974 you could have, as you can now. Please replace "instrumental" with "co-created", so his ideas are very pertinent. BAB is gone, Times do change , 4e Pally are awesome, nothing like a cleric or a fighter. So If you choose not play a Paladin fine, but I disagree with your views on the Paladin. If you do not like Pally just don't play them, very simple.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Yeah, but the paladin was also special in that he had the most restrictive code of conduct and the most powerful abilities to compensate. That's not going to be the case in 5e so quite frankly I'd be happy if the paladin didn't have its own class in this edition because of that.

I didn't get a copy of a Paladin? Where did you see the current Paladin?

Unless you have seen a future copy of D&D Next Paladin, I am unsure how you have any idea of how the Paladin will be. Especially what class features it has, and how it will look in 18 months from now.

 

[DogBackward]

It absolutely does, if you wanted to play a Fighter/cleric in 1974 you could have, as you can now. Please replace "instrumental" with "co-created", so his ideas are very pertinent.

Pertinent to the editions in which he contributed, yes. To Next? Not at all.

BAB is gone, Times do change , 4e Pally are awesome, nothing like a cleric or a fighter.

That would matter... if this were Fourth Edition. It's not. In the edition that we have so far, there is no need for the Paladin, as the Cleric fits the role just fine. There's nothing that a Paladin is supposed to be able to do that the Cleric can't do already.

So If you choose not play a Paladin fine, but I disagree with your views on the Paladin. If you do not like Pally just don't play them, very simple.

I love the Paladin. And I'll play one... by playing a Cleric with the Knight Background and Guardian Theme. But there's no reason to waste space in the core book with a class that will essentially be a very slightly modified version of the Cleric.

Exactly what would you give the Paladin that the Cleric doesn't already have? Explain why they would need to be separate classes, other than "Because that's the way it was a long, long time ago."

 

[underfoot007ct]

Pertinent to the editions in which he contributed, yes. To Next? Not at all.

Exactly what would you give the Paladin that the Cleric doesn't already have? Explain why they would need to be separate classes, other than "Because that's the way it was a long, long time ago."

By that logic, The 4e has a Paladin, which is current & now. So we should include every current class from 4e, due to those classed NOT being from, a long long, time ago.

 

[hafrogman]

Gygax did not agree with you on the Paladin.
In OD&D you had Fighting men, Clerics, & Magic Users. Then in the Greyhawk supplement, He added Paladins & Thieves classes.

Except that only thief was a class. Paladin was a status Fighting Men could achieve.

They also couldn't smite.

 

[DogBackward]

By that logic, The 4e has a Paladin, which is current & now. So we should include every current class from 4e, due to those classed NOT being from, a long long, time ago.

Saying that long-past tradition isn't a reason to use something is not the same as saying recent tradition is. 4e does not enter into the equation at all. It has no bearing here; we're not talking about 4e, we're talking about Next.

Since you seem to have missed it. I'll say it again:
Exactly what would you give the Paladin that the Cleric doesn't already have?
Explain why they would need to be separate classes.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Thank God I have Pathfinder and their Paladin!

 

[underfoot007ct]

Except that only thief was a class. Paladin was a status Fighting Men could achieve.

They also couldn't smite.

True enough, but they could detect & dispel evil.