D&D 5E Class Design Poll: the Paladin

[DEFCON 1]

I voted for the combo XD/spells option.

Reason being... the mechanics can be described any way you want.

People want the Paladin to have a Smite ability. Okay. What does that entail? Presumably it means the Paladin will do extra damage when he hits with his weapon, and that damage is defined as divinely magical in nature-- quite possibly with extra "stuff" on top of it, like it's Holy damage or something.

How exactly is that different than the extra damage the Fighter gets with Expertise Dice? Except for the barest of additional mechanical advantage of the damage type keyword (whatever that ends up actually giving you)... all the other bits are just Story. The Paladin does additional damage via "divine magic" instead of "additional martial skill". But the actual mechanical effect is the same... the Paladin can occasionally do more damage on a weapon hit, just like a Fighter can.

So I don't really see the need to create a "new" Smite mechanic, when the actual results are no different than what we'd get with Expertise Dice-- additional damage. So long as the Story and fluff layered on top of the mechanic is different... and you play the game such that that Story actually matters to the fiction you are creating with your game... then I think we're good.

And as an aside to SageMinerve's assertion to lower the martial capabilities of the Cleric to distinguish it from the Paladin... I think that hit die and weapon and armor proficiencies (especially via domain/deity selection) will more than accomplish the requirement. A Trickster or Sun cleric will be quite less melee capable than a Pally by design. The Justice or Storm cleric (ie the melee-focused ones)? Those I don't mind if they start approaching the Paladin, as that is what their deities want their clerics to be.

 

[the Jester]

Combo meal, with expertise dice enabling various types of Smite effects.

I also really like the idea of each paladin choosing a Cause (an alignment, a deity, a nation, a leader, a virtue, etc) and having some of their powers revolve around that. Instead of "detect evil", a paladin might detect those opposed to his cause.

 

[variant]

First and foremost, I want the paladin to be a paladin.

I would like their design to reflect how uniquely trained and gifted a paladin would be instead of just a fighter and a cleric combined. There are probably numerous ways for them to come about this, but having specific spells and maneuvers for the paladin would be the most obvious.

 

[Halivar]

I prefer the old-school model where both the paladin and ranger were fighter+. I would prefer them to share martial mechanics with the fighter (but with the fighter having more options), plus a unique magic system entirely unlike the cleric or druid, respectively.

 

[timASW]

I want a Paladin:

1) with unique divine abilities (Smite, Lay on hands, etc.); these MUST NOT be spells, because...

2) that doesn't learn/cast spells. Reinforce the difference between Paladins and Clerics;

3) that stands for some ideal, and that keeping true to that ideal has real consequences. It doesn't have, but can be, alignment and/or deities.

And I'd lower the fighting prowess of the cleric just a wee bit so that there's a real distinction between paladin and cleric: martial-wise, a cleric should be to the paladin as a wizard is to the fighter.

If the Paladin casts spells, or the cleric is too melee-savvy, the line blurs between them and it bothers me. A little, at least: I'm not talking about deal-breaking or anything (invoking that threat gets old really fast, IMO); after all, I've played 4 editions of D&D where that line was often very blurry, and that didn't prevent me from having any fun.

Cant XP you but i totally agree. especially about toning down the combat power of the cleric to make the distinction clearer.

 

[SageMinerve]

I can't agree with this. In the melee capable spectrum I feel the default should be that the fighter is at the top and the wizard is at the bottom. The paladin should be close to the capabilities of the fighter in melee, but if I understand your example right this would put the cleric behind the wizard, when I feel they should actually be reasonably ahead of arcane casters.

Just to clarify (I might have worded things poorly), I don't mean to say that, melee-wise, the Paladin should be as good as the fighter and the cleric as bad as the wizard. In fact, if the Paladin is to have some divine abilities, he almost HAS to be less proficient than the fighter.

I just meant by that comment that there should be real differentiation between the Paladin and the Cleric. That is the thrust of my argument. It should be a rare cleric (maybe a God of War cleric or something... hello Kratos! ), though not impossible, that is as proficient as paladins are in melee.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Just to clarify (I might have worded things poorly), I don't mean to say that, melee-wise, the Paladin should be as good as the fighter and the cleric as bad as the wizard. In fact, if the Paladin is to have some divine abilities, he almost HAS to be less proficient than the fighter.

I just meant by that comment that there should be real differentiation between the Paladin and the Cleric. That is the thrust of my argument. It should be a rare cleric (maybe a God of War cleric or something... hello Kratos! ), though not impossible, that is as proficient as paladins are in melee.

I can't XP you yet, but that really did clear it up. At least for me, since I was questioning your post, too. I agree with you, now. As always, play what you like

 

[Gorgoroth]

...

As long as the paladin beats the fighter vs undead and devils and the like, I'll be satisfied. The fighter should just be overall the best in combat, period, but there should be distinct situations where, even in DPR terms, he pulls ahead noticeably due to that "foe specialization".

Wondering what the ranger will be like. Arrrgh D&D why dost thou conquer my fortress of tranquility with dreams of adventure over yon mountainside.

 

[babomb]

I really don't want the Paladin to have spells. I know he always has gotten some spells, but I don't think he needs to, and I'd prefer he didn't. I want more of a separation between Paladin and melee Cleric.

I'm not necessarily against him getting a little bit of expertise dice/maneuver stuff from the fighter, but for me the key Paladin abilities are Smite, Auras, and Lay on Hands. I think I'd rather those not be maneuvers, but maybe it'd be okay if they were. He should also be able to Detect (Supernatural) Evil and Turn Undead; Bonded Mount should be an option.

That said, I could see the Paladin having an equivalent of fighting style/scheme ability tree where one option includes spells, one gets a Bonded Mount and some maneuvers, and one goes all in on Smites and Auras or something.

Maybe the choices in the Paladin class could be Vows. The Paladin would select (say) 5 Vows to make up his Paladin Code. Each vow would have a restriction and a benefit. (The restrictions generally shouldn't be intended to balance the benefit; they're mostly for roleplaying purposes.) For example, a Vow of Poverty restricts the amount of gold and magic items the Paladin can own, but he gains a permanent Protection from Evil; a paladin who takes the Vow of Honesty is prohibited from lying but can Detect Evil; etc.

Also, I really think "Lawful Good Paladin" should continue to be redundant. If other-aligned "Paladins" are to be presented, I'd rather they were presented in a sidebar or otherwise marked as an optional rule. That's not a deal breaker, though.

 

[El Mahdi]

I chose: A full progression of expertise dice/maneuvers, differentiated from fighter by divine focus.

However, I actually prefer All of the Above.

What I want is a Palladin whose mechanics do not limit concepts. In short, any mechanics that absolutely define the Concept of the Paladin are out for me.

A Paladin is many things to many people. There is the uniquely D&D Paladin (itself a unique trope in fantasy). There are the Arthurian or Carolingian Paladins. And there are the historical Templar/Hospitaler Paladins. And there are likely more that I haven't mentioned or I am aware of.

All are concepts that are important to large numbers of D&D Fans, and all need to be able to be envisioned by the mechanics of the class.

Any mechnics that limit or exclude a concept or concepts for one specific one is an automatic fail. It will exclude a segment of D&D fans from effectively using D&D Next to envision their game. Something that seems in direct controvention of the stated goals for D&D Next...