Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 136554" data-attributes="member: 537">The basic reason for this is that the niche you mention is already filled, by the cleric. The cleric had its original 1E roots in the "crusading warrior" concept -- Templars, Hospitalers, and the like. Things have changed a lot in the intervening 25 years, but the class is, at base, still a holy warrior -- notice the d8 hit die, heavy armour, weapons, and fair BAB progression. This hasn't stopped people from trying to use the class to represent more generic priests, of course, and it also leaves up in the air the question of what a multiclassed fighter/cleric is supposed to be. Nevertheless, the point remains that the cleric is the natural candidate for the role you mention.What does this mean for the paladin? It means that the paladin's niche has to be narrow, to avoid encroaching on the cleric's space. There's not much point having two classes that are both meant to serve as holy champions -- it just results in confusion and makes it hard for the classes to be distinguished from each other. (An example of this can be seen in the wizard and sorc, who both essentially fill the same niche -- that of the arcane spellcasting specialist. D&D goes to great pains to give the two classes a distinct backstory, and yet people still keep coming up with ways to make wizards more like sorcs, and vice-versa.)Personally, I think the paladin should have been made into a prestige class. Its focus is narrow rather than broad, which should be the prime requirement for a base class. But I guess we're stuck with the class as it is.</blockquote>

Verification