Paladin--Core class?

[Chun-tzu]

How about a Poll?

Paladin:
1) Core Class!
2) PrC!
3) Make equivalent to Blackguard / Holy Liberator, so all PrCs or all Core Classes.
4) Bah! Weak do-gooders! Ban Paladins!

-- Nifft

PS: Personally, I'd vote for #2 -- Paladin as PrC.

Dragongirl suggested that the Paladin core class should be replaced with a more generic and more flexible Holy Warrior core class. So the poll should be more along the lines of:

1) Paladins as a core class should be replaced by the Holy Warrior; LG Holy Warriors would then be Paladins.
2) Paladins are not just LG Holy Warriors, and should remain a core class.
3) Paladins are not just LG Holy Warriors, and should become a prestige class.
4) Other

Actually, the Holy Warrior vs. Paladin is one issue, and the core class vs. prestige class is a separate one.

Anyway, like I said in the first thread, a Paladin is more than just a LG Holy Warrior, because it represents a very specific and meaningful archetype. Reducing the Paladin to simply one type of Holy Warrior would do the class an injustice.

 

[Balthasar]

The comment about D&D (still feels wierd leaving off the 'A') not being a generic system is well made.

The fact of the matter is D&D is a game about heroes...and the archtypical hero is most definitely the paladin. It's most definitely a core class of D&D (not D20)...the game wouldn't be the same without it.

It's about the roleplaying ppl, not the rules....keep this clear in your minds

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The Paladin is quite a bit more than a LG Holy Warrior and should be kept as a Core Class.

For one thing, it's a literary staple, and for another, it wouldn't be D&D without the Paladin.

And it's one of the most fun classes to roleplay

 

[Xarlen]

I think the Paladin should stay in the core rules as a Class.

Or, made into a Template, a few abilities which could be adapted to fit several classes. The paladin as a core class seems like a Divine Fighter; a Fighter without the feats, but more holy associated powers. So what about a Wizard with more Holy Associated powers?

Remember that just because the Paladin is a core class, doesn't mean that any of the core classes can't ACT like a paladin. A Wizard can certainly follow the Code, can act like a Paladin in every respect, sans the wearing of the armor (Unless he takes the Spellsword class perhaps).

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

...
Or, made into a Template, a few abilities which could be adapted to fit several classes. The paladin as a core class seems like a Divine Fighter; a Fighter without the feats, but more holy associated powers. So what about a Wizard with more Holy Associated powers?

Remember that just because the Paladin is a core class, doesn't mean that any of the core classes can't ACT like a paladin. A Wizard can certainly follow the Code, can act like a Paladin in every respect, sans the wearing of the armor (Unless he takes the Spellsword class perhaps).

Strangely enough, I really like this idea. Gets back to the idea of the Paladin being more than a mere fighter (or a mere wizard or whatever )

 

[Xarlen]

Strangely enough, I really like this idea. Gets back to the idea of the Paladin being more than a mere fighter (or a mere wizard or whatever )

I used the example of Wizard because a Paladin-like Rogue would be weird. But doable. And a Paladin-like Cleric?

Sorceror, more doable, as is a Bard (Unfortunately, Bards can't be Lawful so no go ). Ditto for Druids and Barbarians.

 

[Agback]

Re: Paladin = core

If you want to make it a PrC, that's fine; but then you should get rid of Specialist Wizards, Cleric Domains, Rangers, Druids, Monks, and Bards. All of those classes could also be PrCs.

Better yet, those 'classes' could all be constructed using feat choices. A Monk could be a fighter who chose a bunch of unarmed combat and yoga feats, a barbarian a fighter with a rage feat, and so forth. Among the advantages of this approach is tht it would be possibel to play a young, inexperienced, (ie. first level) monk, barbarian, or paladin.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Theuderic]

This reminds me of the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, where you pick a general class, and add abilities to the class to distinguish the PC.

 

[mattcolville]

Yes, well, obviously if we think the Paladin could be a PrC we end up in the world where Monks, Rangers, Barbarians, and Druids are all PrCs. I don't think I want to live in that world. Though a d20 fantasy game that took all the class abilities, skills, feats, etc...and let you build and buy as you wanted would be cool, I'd play it. It'd be a lot like CODA though, I suspect.

The classes are some of the sacred cows, you can't really monkey with them. I'd like a system where I build my Paladin though, and could have paladins of different alignments, like the Illrigger and the Lyan. I loved that stuff.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

This reminds me of the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, where you pick a general class, and add abilities to the class to distinguish the PC.

I just grabbed a copy of this book from Ebay - I had sold mine when I was young and stupid and thought I could get a good trade-in on it from the game shop.

I like how a lot of things that ended up in 3E were present in that rules system. For example, it has a similar same-bonus-for-same-ability-score system, and you can look at the druid, paladin, knight, and avenger as forerunners to today's prestige class.

Anyway, more on topic, I think that all alignments should be able to have their champions. Or maybe just the non-neutral alignments, I'm not sure. I'm pretty neutral on the prestige class vs core class issue, I could see the merits of either system.