How much smiting do you like?

[Mouseferatu]

As others have mentioned, paladins are feat-starved. To make good use of the Special Mount, they need Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack and if at all possible, Spirited Charge. To make use of their high cha and turning attempts (which will rarely be useful for actual turning, starting out at cleric level -3), they need Divine Might (which requires Power Attack) and Divine Shield. Plus there are any number of other attractive feats for a melee combatant in general. (Oh, Improved Critical, how I want thee!) With all of these feats on a paladin's wish-list, it's hard to justify spending one on two extra smites. Yes, smiting is very nice, but spending a feat on the ability seems wasteful, and more than one feat quite mad.

Best way around that, IME? Focus your paladin. It's simply not feasible to play someone who's an expert at mounted combat and a master of divine energies and a melee fighter/evil smasher supreme. Decide which one fits your character concept best and run with it.

My minotaur mentioned above? Doesn't worry about divine feats, and in fact I've made exactly two attempts to turn undead in 11 levels of play. I have no mounted feats, and in fact, I don't have a mount. What he is designed to be is a warrior against evil, focus on "warrior." He doesn't even have spells, having gone with the non-spell-using variant in Complete Warrior. In fact, with DM approval, I traded out my ability to ever call a mount in exchange for an extra smite per day and a very minor stat bump. Yes, he's a combat monster; that's what most fit this particular character concept.

Because paladins have almost always been portrayed as the cavalier/knight-in-shining-armor type--which is a fun character, but not the be-all and end-all of the class--I've noticed that a lot of people seem to feel they should be perfect at all aspects of it. IMO, paladins are just like fighters in that regard; they have to pick a direction or two out of several that are available, and stick with it.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I've noticed that a lot of people seem to feel they should be perfect at all aspects of it. IMO, paladins are just like fighters in that regard; they have to pick a direction or two out of several that are available, and stick with it.

I don't disagree with this. My point wasn't that a single paladin would want every feat I mentioned, but rather that there are a lot of feats a paladin could want, and not a lot of feat slots with which to buy them.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't disagree with this. My point wasn't that a single paladin would want every feat I mentioned, but rather that there are a lot of feats a paladin could want, and not a lot of feat slots with which to buy them.

Gotcha.

Hmm... You know, the non-spell-using paladin variant from Complete Warrior is okay... But I wonder how easy it would be to create a new non-spell-using paladin and balance the removal of spells with a few bonus feats at various levels, rather than the new abilities introduced in CW. It's not quite like multiclassing paladin/fighter, since you're still advancing things like Lay on Hands and Cure Disease and Smite...

I need to think about this.

 

[Darklone]

If you want more feats, go with the paladin as prestige class approach in UA. Take 4 fighter levels and a cleric level, for example, then the prestige class. You'll do fine.

 

[the Jester]

My only experience with playing 3e paladins lasted only one and a half games, alas.

He might've taken it though- he was a melee brute half-orc with a good nature who had struggled to find the inner peace to overcome his anger.

 

[Stormborn]

I am planning to play a Paladin variant in out next campaign kind of like the Sentinel from Dragon #310, and in mapping out his feats he will be taking extra smiting once, but mostly focusing on the Dragon fighting feats from Dragonomicon. As a DM I would certainly allow Extra Smiting, but as has been pointed out, there are too many feats and too few slots for the average Paladin, so I doubt it would be a problem.