Paladins in 3.5, why?

[Guilt Puppy]

While I can see the benefits of trying to narrow the argument (gameplay concerns do not by necessity remove the paladin, so I don't think it's fair to say you're trying to eliminate disagreement), I'm still not entirely sure how to respond to it in that context... Gameplay doesn't exist in a vacuum, and there is no singular ideal -- you have to evaluate gameplay in terms of the goals of a specific system. Hopefully that's not too far from your ideal context, because that's where I'm going

You see, D&D is a gateway RPG. Although Wizards is concerned with appealing to the old school gamers as well (hence the rather well-engineered d20 system), they have to acknowledge the fact that it's the sort of game first-time role-players will have the opportunity and interest in joining. It has to be playable right out of the box.

Now, first-time gamers don't look for solid mechanics (although they benefit if they're easy to understand) or versatile options -- they just want to play a cool character... (Ah, how I love first-time gamers ) Which is where classic archetypes come in. They provide a nifty little package which can be customized, sure, but still stands on its own as Fun to Play.

The new gamer who wants to play a Joan of Arc type? Out of luck without the paladin -- oh sure, maybe multi-classing won't go over their heads, but a Fighter/Cleric just isn't quite the same, and a prestige class? What's that?

Now, that's how the logic makes the paladin fit for 3.0... 3.5, well, it's a little different. While it still has that to worry about, it's also sort of an upgrade for current players, some more depth, some more versitility -- "options, not restrictions." In that light, I could see making a less rigid paladin -- the holy warrior that's been described, but let's call it a paladin just to piss off the diehards Something that's still playable out of the box, but with plenty of room for twists (Number one on that list: Alignment restrictions should get nixed).

D&D, however, is not and should not be simply "d20 fantasy" in the same vein as d20 Modern... for d2M the stripped down, flavorless class system works: Its market is more the long-term gamer (who the hell, having never played an RPG before, sees "d20 modern" on a shelf and says "oh! that looks fun!") -- people who are quite used to using rules to create their own flavor. But that is not the audience for D&D, and it never has been. Which is why gameplay concerns are what they are..

 

[Agback]

G'day

My position is that the game ought to be kept free of unnecessary complications, and IMHO the Paladin is one such, either as a core class or as a PrC.

I think you can get all the holy warrior you need out of a Fighter/Cleric, and that at very most some of the paladin special abilities ought to be made into feats with alignment/code restrictions and appropriate pre-requisites. A fighter who takes the Paladin feat chain looks very much like the current paladin: fighter stats with fewer combat feats but other special abilities.

I am not a big fan of the PrC class solution. First because I don't like prestige classes very much (especially when they are built to give more bang per buck than real classes). Second because some of the literary models for paladins (eg. Perceval) displayed the powers of their holiness very young. It seems to me that purity of heart is rarely something that people acquire through worldly experience. (At least in literary convention, that is. Though I note that most great religious reformers have been nearly thirty before they renounce the temptations of the World.)

Regards,


Agback

 

[Kevmann10583]

OK, there are far too many post for me to reply to and I have not slept for more then a day, so I will make this quick.

I think that the thread has gone way off topic. It has turned into "well, I can construe the meaning to be this, or that, etc." And I admit, I am guilt of this as well as everyone else. My origional point about this is that the Paladin is way too restrictive to be considered a core class. Just take a step back and look at the basics, the paladin is restricted to only one alignment and has a relativly stricked code of conduct. Now, I can tell you that the paladin has harder requirements then most of the prcs out there. All the other core classes allow AT LEAST three different alignments, and none of them have codes of conduct.

Core classes were created as general classes that could take in huge amounts of characters. Core classes have hardly any requirements at all, and these requirements are normaly only deal with alignment.

Prcs were created as specific classes that focus on one aspect. Prcs normaly have tough requirements that go beyond just alignment.

The paladin is the only core class that is one sided when it comes to good/evil/neutral alignment, and in geneneral is unfair to persons who would like to play a character with abilities similar to the paladin with a different alignment (similar abilites mean +1/1 BAB, and abilites that could go twords any god or alignment such as divine grace).

If you look at the paladin, you find that it has very specific, difficult, and special requirements that make it more suited as a prc then a core class because requirements are the very thing that make core classes different from prcs.

 

[Kevmann10583]

I would also like to say that I like the paladin as it is, and would not like to see any aspect of it changes save that it is changed to a prc.

 

[Agback]

Well, while we're on this whole discussion, let's make Monks, Sorcerors, Rangers, Bards, Barbarians, and Druids PrCs too.

I agree that most of those can be generalised out, but I'd prefer to do it with feat choices rather than prestige classes. A barbarian is a fighter who chooses a 'Rage' feat chain. A Ranger is a fighter with an 'outdoorsy' feat chain (and, if you insist, the TWF chain). The monk has swapped out some armour and weapon proficiencies for unarmed and mystical feats. Druids ought to be members of a more generalised Cleric class with appropriate domain choices (and perhaps a specific feat chain). Sorcerors and Bards I'm not so sure about.

I can hear you say "But Agback, if you have fewer classes but more feats, that doesn't really make the game simpler". To which I answer 'Indeed not, but it does make it more versatile, since it makes it much easier for players (including GMS) to build interesting variations on class concepts.'

Regards,


Agback

 

[Scupper]

Core classes were created as general classes that could take in huge amounts of characters.

I'm still waiting for the huge number of different Druids that you can make, since they aren't nearly as restricted in alignment. And Bards. Monks, maybe, if you count a bunch of variations on "martial artist" as different characters.

Core classes have hardly any requirements at all, and these requirements are normaly only deal with alignment.

From the SRD:

Druids are proficient with the following weapons: club, dagger, dart, halfspear, longspear, quarterstaff, scimitar, sickle, shortspear, and sling. Their spiritual oaths prohibit them from using weapons other than these. They are proficient with light and medium armors but are prohibited from wearing metal armor (thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor). They are skilled with shields but must use only wooden ones.

I smell prestige class!

From the SRD:

When wearing armor, a monk loses her AC bonus for Wisdom, AC bonus for class and level, favorable multiple unarmed attacks per round, and heightened movement. Furthermore, her special abilities all face the arcane spell failure chance that the armor type normally imposes.

I smell prestige class!

The ranger loses this special bonus when fighting in medium or heavy armor...

Evasion can only be used if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor...

Sorcerers are not proficient with any type of armor, nor with shields...

To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score of at least 10 + the spell's level...

A wizard must prepare spells ahead of time by getting a good night's sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the wizard decides which spells to prepare...

But having to obey the alignment you chose is more of a pain in the ass than not being able to wear armor and not knowing one end of a battleaxe from the other, right?

Oh, and by the way, here is the text of the Paladin's restriction:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all special abilities and spells...

Nowhere does it say "one slip or questionable call on the paladin's part and zupp! no more paladin!"

The paladin is the only core class that is one sided when it comes to good/evil/neutral alignment, and in geneneral is unfair to persons who would like to play a character with abilities similar to the paladin with a different alignment

And eliminating it as a core class fixes this problem how ...?

If you look at the paladin, you find that it has very specific, difficult, and special requirements that make it more suited as a prc then a core class because requirements are the very thing that make core classes different from prcs.

It has exactly one requirement: be lawful good and act that way.

The requirements that make a class more suitable to a prestige class than a core class are simple: they are not possible to achieve at very low level. A paladin's are quite easy to achieve at first level.

Paladins have no restrictions on weapon use, armor use, or sheild use. They have no arcane spell failure. They have good hit dice and BAB.

Your argument seems to boil down to:

To be a paladin, you have to act like a paladin, therefore it should be a prestige class.

Would you rather have someone who's a fighter for five levels or so, doesn't give a crap about ethics or alignment, but suddenly qualifies for "paladinhood" because of skills? Or the reverse: a fighter who has to obey all the strictures of being a paladin but doesn't get to be one until 6th level?

Both options make very little sense to me.

 

[Henry]

Kevmann, I think there are two different thread topics here, and the waters are muddied by their coexistance. I think there should be a wider choice of holy warrior, myself, but don't think they need to be prestige classes. There are others here who feel the exact opposite - make them prestige, but keep 'em paladins. The two together are making for a broad range of arguments.

However, I also think that if you desire an open mind to discussion, this also means you yourself being open to the idea that there is plenty of room for variation in paladins, as Scupper showed. It also means that some here do not believe that the code of a paladin is not a penalty. Wizards don't wear armor, and rogues don't cast spells; just because the paladin's restriction is a behavioral one does not mean that the class is too narrowly defined.

In the end, the class will likely stay a core class because so many players want it so, despite whether this seems illogical to some. I have no objections to a holy warrior (making me want to check out Aaron Loeb's book more and more), but making it prestige is itself too limiting for me.

 

[coyote6]

I have no objections to a holy warrior (making me want to check out Aaron Loeb's book more and more),

[hypnotic]
You must submit, Henry.
You want the Book of the Righteous, Henry.
You need the Book of the Righteous, Henry.
The Book of the Righteous is good, Henry.
You don't have to wait until July to get the Book of the Righteous, Henry.
You can get it right here, Henry.
[/hypnotic]

As for prestige class paladins -- the Call of Duty PDF had some interesting variant paladin prestige classes, including an almost-full-class version (a 15 level prestige class). Good stuff.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Yup, I'm one of those people that actually like the code of conduct. To me it is not a restriction but rather a guide that your paladin's behaviour must fall within and, I would add, that it is actually rather broad. The knights of the round table had a much more specific code but that was loosened for modern morality (less female frailty) I guess.

Just to make it clear there seems to be X positions.

• 
  No paladin class, core or prestige
  Paladin core only
  Paladin prestige only
  Paladin core, optional prestige
  Holy champion core
  Holy champion prestige

 

[Hypersmurf]

Originally posted by Corinth
(Note: There is no spell in the core rulebooks that may make anyone's alignment falsely detect as evil, so the horrific circumstance that you imply cannot happen; the worst that can happen is that an evil being escapes detection because he masked his alignment with the aid of an undetectable alignment spell.)

Ooh, don't you hate it when that happens?

Misdirection
Illusion (Glamer)
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature or object, up to a 10-ft. cube in size
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance: No
By means of this spell, the character misdirects the information from divination spells that reveal auras. On casting the spell, the character chooses another object within range. For the duration of the spell, the subject of misdirection is detected as if it were the other object. Detection spells provide information based on the second object rather than on the actual target of the detection unless the caster of the detection succeeds at his save.
This spell does not affect other types of divination.

-----

There are also at least two other circumstances under which a non-evil creature could register as evil:

A Lawful Neutral Cleric of a Lawful Evil Deity or a Chaotic Neutral Cleric of a Chaotic Evil Deity will detect as evil.

A non-evil undead - even one of those freaky good liches from FR - will detect as evil.

And aside from that, it's perfectly possible for someone to be of evil alignment, having never commited any crime deserving of death.

-Hyp.