D&D 5E Paladins in 5e (different from Battle Clerics and Chivalrous Fighters)

[LordArchaon]

The Paladin is one of the few classes that has me very concerned, when talking about D&D Next /5e and its objective of making every class look, feel and play differently.
I already stated before that, at least for Martial classes, I see two "attributes" that could really distinguish classes beyond 4e's Tactical Role, and they're Strategical Role and Preferred Field. I'm gonna re-post here my views about them:

Fighter:
- Strategical Role: Stalwart (visible, up-front, no tricks, moves slowly)
- Preferred Field: Any field in which many enemies can concentrate around him (he can also "create" this field by goading/challenging or good positioning.
Rogue:
- Strategical Role: Sneak (poorly visible, dirty tricks, moves to get advanatge and hit weak spots)
- Preferred Field: Urban/cramped environment, concealment, objects to use as advantage, traps. At best when enemies are isolated or positioned in a way as to offer weak spots (flanked).
Warlord:
- Strategical Role: Commander (very visible, second line of battle, uses allies and psychology to control and lead the battle)
- Preferred Field: Any field in whcih allies have room to maneuver and operate in concert. At best in war-like situations in which formations and advanced tactics can be used.
Ranger:
- Strategical Role: Skirmisher (always moving, using terrain for advantage/cover, advanced combat styles that match high speed and "shock" tactics)
- Preferred Field: Open and wild fields in which enemies move fast and require the speed and *range* of the Ranger to be dealt with. At best in forests or similar environments in which guerrilla-like skirmish can be set up.

Now, the Paladin has nearly the same Strategical Role and Preferred Field as the Fighter IMO. It would be different being Divine, but that would end up changing just the "looks" part of the class. The "feel" could also be different, including the Paladin's Challenge thing and the various Channel Divinity things, but the truth is that "how the class plays" would be really very similar to the Fighter. And to add to the problem, the "feel" would also seem very similar to that of a "Battle Cleric", and the looks to those of a "Chivalrous Fighter".

What are your thoughts about this? What should really differentiate the Paladin class?
In my opinion, the Paladin should take the Ranger's stuff in the "favored enemy" department. They could be stronger against bosses or anyway "bigger/scarier" enemies, while the Ranger could be the one that takes out other skirmishers, and the Fighter the one to deal with crowds of soldiers and such. But this of course isn't enough, although I think it's fitting (would be like an interpretation of their bonuses VS Fear).

EDIT: Another thing that could distinguish them and be fitting of their legacy, would be their "unstoppable" flavor/mechanics. While a Fighter should position carefully, use the right weapons and tactics to get to his/her enemies, and would be in danger when confronted with spells and other "battle-changing" effects, the Paladin would be perhaps less versatile, but better at overcoming magic, eventual (optional) morale difficulties, and such. They'd be the class that can get to the Dragon first, while everyone is stunned in fear, or to the evil spellcaster, shrugging off slowing or immobilizing effects first (taking a bit of the 4e's Warden stuff in the process). Their "shielding their allies" thing could also be something they do well. While Fighters would prevent damage to allies by parrying blows and such, the Paladin would be one of the few that could really interpose themselves when allies are in danger. Also, I picture them able to create magical effects focused on their shields, shielding the whole party against a dragon's breath and things like that. If the Fighter is the sword or spear of the party, the Paladin would be its shield...

Say yours!

 

[tlantl]

I hope none of the class structure looks anything like yours.

If the class is that of fighter then it should be capable of doing everything a fighter can do. Sub classes of fighters are given niches to fill not roles they fill in a fight. Paladins fight for right and good rangers spend their time trailblazing and scouting. Warlord is a title not a class.

Dividing up the classes to fit as pieces (on a board?) of a puzzle is what got the game in trouble. If it continues then what is the sense of trying to do it all over again.

First and foremost a fighter is a fighter is a fighter. From there you make small changes to reflect the niche the sub class fits into.

The Paladin and the Ranger were both specialty classes you needed very specific qualifications to be able to take, More like modern prestige classes than separate classes on their own.

The ranger could only be good and needed 13's or better in strength and intelligence to qualify.

Paladins were even harder to qualify for. If either did anything against their alignments they lost their powers until the made atonements.

It seems that along the way all of the negative things that helped define the classes was lost leaving behind something that is less than it was intended.

 

[steeldragons]

Was just going through this a couple of days ago...and the ranger too...all martial classes as matter of fact.

I will concur with the desire that the classes not be defined with Role (Tactical or Strategic). How the players want their character to act with the abilities and skills at their disposal is best left to the realm of suggestion...or better yet, not in print at all...except for some expansion/add-on/supplemental "Tactical Play" module.

But, anywho, here's the definitions I was toyign around with the other day (more stuff to be found in the "Who gets What?" thread).

Fighters (applies also for Barbarians, Cavaliers, Paladins, Rangers and Warlords except as individually defined below):
-auto 10 hp/level or a d10 hp/level.
-Use of any armor.
-Use of any weapon.
-Increase Damage, regardless of strength or other bonuses, +1 every other level.
-Increase Attacks per round(with proficient weapons), regardless of other skills/themes, additional attack per round every 5 levels (5th, 10th, 15th and 20th) to a max of 4/round at 20th level.
-Optional Weapon/Fighting Styles (a Fighter may choose/take 1 @ 1st level and improve their bonuses or choose a different Style every other level):
---Dual-Wielding (2 attacks per round, note that Increased Attacks are still only 1 per 5 levels, not 1 per hand!);
---Bowman (bonuses to hit regardless of Dexterity, increased number of attacks/fast reloading, with archery/long/short bows or crossbows);
---"Sword" & Board (use any single handed weapon & shield to make and block attacks, increase AC more than just having a shield);
---Spearman (use spears & javelins thrown, single with shield and two-handed, with increased damage/effectivness, a trick or two);
---Axeman (bonus to thrown, single and two-handed axes, use of axes to increase AC/block attacks, a trick or two);
---Weapon Specialist/Master (increased damage and separate increased frequency of attacks with ONE weapon of choice).

Barbarian:
-auto 12 hp/lvl or d12 hp/lvl
-limited to light/soft armor (hides/furs, leather, studded leather; Ring mail & Scale mail permitted over 7th level).
-May take any Optional Fighting Style, except the Weapon Specialist/Master.
-Tracking and Wilderness Survival Skills
-Increase Resistance: +1 to saves/def. roles to mind-control magic, poisons, and fatigue/endurance. Additional +1 per 5 levels to max of +4 at 15th level.
-"Beserker Rage": increase HP, temporarily, by half the Barbarian's full hit points, regardless of the number of HPs possessed at the time of rage. +Barbarian's level to all damage rolls while in the rage. A Barbarian may "go Beserker" 1 time per day/per level. The Beserker Rage is able to last/be maintained Barbarian level + 3 rounds and may not "Rage" again for double that amount of time. The Barbarian may "calm" himself before the full amount of time has passed, but still may not work himself into a "Rage" frenzy again for double the amount of time he/she was raging.
[-If Alignment is used in game, I would want the restriction of "must be Chaotic", but that's not really the mechanics we're working with here]

Cavalier/Knight:
-Must wear "heavy" armor: Scale Mail, Chain mail, or (preferably) Plate mail. Receive no penalty to movement in heavy armor.
-May use any melee weapon but MUST carry (be proficient in, if weapon proficiencies are part of the game) some form of sword and spear or lance. Cavaliers may not use missile weapons.
-Riding Mastery and Political knowledge/Diplomacy skills.
-May take the following Optional Fighting Styles: Sword & Board, Spearman, or Weapon Specialist/Master
-Automatically receives the "Jouster" Fighting Style: use of lance, spear, any single-handed sword, and mace/morningstar/flail, from horseback without penalty, maybe a damage bonus?, a "Mounted Charge" mechanic?

Paladin:
-Paladins may use any melee weapon. They may not use missile weapons considering them "dishonorable" ways of doing battle/meting out justice, as do Cavaliers.
-Religious knowledge and Diplomacy skills.
-May take any of the following Optional Fighting Style: Sword and Board, Spearman, Axeman or Jouster.
-"Holy Aura": +1 to saves every other level (+2 @ 3rd, +3 @5th) to a maximum of +4 @ 7th level. The Aura effects the Paladin only @ 1st level and increases 5' radius/level every level thereafter. Attacks against the Paladin within/while the Holy Aura is in effect are -1 for every other level of the Paladin (same as their bonus) for all undead, devils and demons. The Holy Aura may be invoked 1 time per day/per level of the Paladin and lasts the Paladin Level+3 rounds. The Paladin does then not have the spiritual strength to invoke the Aura again for double the time the Holy Aura was active.
-"Lay on Hands": The Paladin is able to channel divine energy to heal wounds up to a total of 2 HP per Paladin level per day. These HP may be dispersed among however many people the Paladin wants. (Note: Offering or agreeing to heal non-believers or enemies of the Paladin's
faith/church is generally unlikely/not done.)
-"Turn Undead", see Clerics, beginning at 3rd level and effecting as a Cleric two levels lower than the Paladin's level. eg. A 3rd level Paladin Turns Undead as a 1st level Cleric.
-"Detect Lie", once per day per level, the Paladin may concentrate on a particular person and their statements and accurately detect lies that are being spoken. This effect lasts for the Paladin Level+1 round.
[-If Alignment is used in game, I would want the restriction of "must be Lawful", but that's not really the mechanics we're working with here]

Ranger:
-auto 12 HP/lvl or d12 hp/lvl
-weapons and armor allowances and all Optional Fighting Styles are all as per the Fighter.
-Tracking and Wilderness Survival Skills
-Automatically receives the "Ambusher" Fighting style (as long as they are in Chain Mail or lesser armor): Hide/cover themselves in outdoor settings, some kind of "Surprise" mechanic?, receive double the Ranger's usual number of attacks for the first round of their "Ambush"?
-Herbalist Healer: the Ranger is able to gather and prepare natural herb-based remedies and minor first aid for most injuries. The Ranger is able to heal 2 HP of damage per Ranger level. These HP may be spread out among as many people as the Ranger wants. The Herbalist healing
requires 1 round of time/attention from the Ranger per 1 HP being healed.

Warlord:
-May take any Optional Fighting Style for Fighters, plus Jouster or Ambusher.
-Increased Resistance: +1 to saves vs. mind-controlling, fear, and confusion magics and effects. Additional +1 per 5 levels to a max of +4 at 15th level.
-"Assuring Presence": Through their inspiring presence, the Warlord's save bonus from their "Increased Resistance" ability is able to be applied to those within the area of effect, 5' per Warlord level. This air of confidence also attributes a Temporary 4 HP to everyone, including the Warlord, within the area of effect. The Warlord is able to generate this area of reassurance once per day per Warlord level. The Assuring Presence lasts for the Warlord level +3 rounds, and may not be "inspiring" again for double the amount of time it was in effect.
-"Field Medic": Through use of first aid and basic knowledge of the body, the Warlord is able to restore 2 HP per day per level. These HPs may be dispersed among however many people the Warlord wishes. The "Field Medic" healing requires 1 round of medical/bandaging attention from the Warlord for every 1 HP being healed.

 

[paladinm]

I think this view is based on the assumption of 4e roles, level-pegging, etc. Yes, from a 4e perspective, a fighter and a paladin could be virtually interchangeable.. but almost all the classes are interchangeable, especially classes within a given "role".

A paladin is a fighter at core.. so is a ranger, a barbarian, a knight, etc. A "pure" fighter should have other benefits, such as greater weapon skill. But paladins are unique in that they have a connection to the divine, not as great as clerics, but still a factor. Their healing abilities are a good backup to any healing class, and their ability to smite/dispel evil is something unique. Above all, a paladin is Good (in the Lawful way).

I can possibly see "modularizing" the paladin by making the LoH, smite evil, turn undead, etc. modules that can be tacked on. But I also think you could have all that and still not have a paladin.

 

[Minigiant]

A paladin is a celestial in a mortal warrior's body.

They are warriors blessed with divine power and can channel it in many ways. Sometimes as healing. Sometimes as divine grace and might. Sometimes as destruction. Sometimes as holy tongues and eyes.

They are different than fighter as they are no completely trained in the art of war and combat. They lack the versatility. Paladins are trained how to use weapons and armors but not how to master them. Their divine blessing fills their lack of skill.

They are different from clerics as they are not merely granted powers. They are blessed with it. A paladin is closer to a warlock, their bodies are transformed into divine weapons and shields.

 

[grimslade]

The paladin needs to be the champion for Good. Or Evil. Or Chaos. Or Law.
He is not a knight. Or a priest. Or warrior. He is all of these things. A forceful proponent of his ethos.
A good paladin does not need to be Lawful Good. He should champion all of good.
An evil paladin, or Blackguard, is unrepentant force of tyranny and destruction.
A lawful paladin, or Justicar, is an implacable and rigid walking court of Law.
A chaotic paladin, or Wild Lord, is the wind of change. Freedom for freedoms sake.

There should not be a spell list for the paladin. His powers are inherent SLAs. LoH, Detect Champion of an opposing ethos, Smiting and shielding.

He may not be the greatest swordsman, that is a fighter or the most pious, that is a cleric, but he is recognizably a zealot to his ethos. Tenacious, resilient, steadfast. The paladin is striving to outlast and overcome his foes.

 

[SKyOdin]

I think the Paladin is defined by three general features:

1) Smiting Evil: The ability to imbue their attacks with divine power than is particularly effective against creatures of of evil such as demons and undead.

2) Lay on Hands: The ability to heal wounds and illness using a divine power different than cleric spell-casting.

3) Divine Protection: The Paladin is protected by divine favor, giving them special defense against supernatural powers. Immunity to fear is a subset of this.

Another key defining aspect of the Paladin is self-sacrifice. Whereas a Fighter might punish an enemy for harming an ally with an attack, the Paladin is more likely to throw himself in the way of the attack, or soak up damage through the Shield Other spell. I also liked the 4E version of Lay on Hands where the Paladin sacrificed their own healing surges to heal others.


Now then, the Battle Cleric is defined by a completely different set of features. While a Cleric can fight with mace and shield, they are much more defined by access to divine spells. I actually really like the style of the 4E Warpriest in particular. It focuses on giving the Cleric a variety of daily spells that each grant persistent encounter-long effects. It gives the feeling of calling upon a god to grant a blessing on the Cleric and his allies. Consecrated ground, holy circles that ward off evil, blessings that boost the party, summoned angels, and so forth are all very appropriate powers for a cleric, and have a distinct feel from the Wizard's Fireballs and Teleports.

 

[LordArchaon]

A paladin is a celestial in a mortal warrior's body.

They are warriors blessed with divine power and can channel it in many ways. Sometimes as healing. Sometimes as divine grace and might. Sometimes as destruction. Sometimes as holy tongues and eyes.

They are different than fighter as they are no completely trained in the art of war and combat. They lack the versatility. Paladins are trained how to use weapons and armors but not how to master them. Their divine blessing fills their lack of skill.

They are different from clerics as they are not merely granted powers. They are blessed with it. A paladin is closer to a warlock, their bodies are transformed into divine weapons and shields.

The first and perhaps only post in the thread I agree with: you're the only one that truly differentiated the Paladin, and differentiation is the first and foremost requirement of ANY class.
Another 2 cp of mine: I say that in a given faith, the Cleric is the mystical figure, while the Paladin is the "practical one" (kind of obvious point). That's to say, the Paladin's "being blessed" is different from the Cleric's "blessing others". The Paladin's "powers" make him/her directly a vehicle of divinity, while the Cleric is more of a channeler, making these powers act more independently of his/her body, perhaps through others. Cures for example: the Paladin has to touch, the Cleric can cure from a distance and more then one person because it's a mystical, not physical thing.

 

[paladinm]

The problem with "differentiating" the paladin is that, whichever way you go, the class ends up seeming superfluous. If you remove spellcasting, you end up with a fighter with a few benies, something that can be accomplished with kits/themes/feats. If you add more "mystical" stuff, you get a battle cleric. I'd say you have the same issue with other "non-core" classes (bard, ranger, etc.)

What makes the paladin (or any class) unique?

1. Alignment - sorry, all you alignment-haters out there
2. Focus - historically you can't multi-class a paladin

That brings up the bigger question: for hybrid/non-"core" classes, should they be able to multi-class when they themselves Are a type of multi-classing?

 

[Khaalis]

As to the Paladin concern... the problem is that the Cleric is Already a Paladin by its core definition. If you truly want to separate the Cleric and Paladin then Clerics should be more Priests. By that I mean they should be primarily spellcasters, backers (4E leader role stuff), masters of undead perhaps, and gain much more "molding" based on their Faith, more like 2E specialty priests. The Paladin should then be the plate wearing military branch of the faith.

 

[FireLance]

As anyone who has played the Ultima series (from Ultima IV onward, anyway) knows, a fighter is all about Valor, but a paladin is all about Honor.

Jokes aside, that to me is the essence of a paladin: he is a warrior of virtue. Unlike a fighter, he is not fighting for a good cause simply because he is paid, or because he is going along with a friend. He is deliberately and consciously choosing to do so: defending the innocent, protecting the weak, helping the helpless, bringing justice to the wicked, etc. As a class, paladins should also be more discerning than clerics: you wouldn't find a paladin serving a god of darkness or greed, for example.

In 3e and ealier editions, this was done by restricting paladins to mostly the Lawful Good alignment. Early 4e opened up the paladin class to every alignment (personal view: ugh ), but Essentials brought back some of that flavor by tying paladins to a virtue (specifically, valor and sacrifice).

In 5e, I hope I get my warriors of virtue back. Mind you, if I were to start from a clean slate, I probably wouldn't have a separate paladin class. I'd start with a basic fighter and offer the paladin abilities through a series of divine boons which the character must earn. Wouldn't that be an interesting solo adventure path?

 

[Frostmarrow]

The paladin as a concept is surprisingly sturdy. Paladins started out as lawful good humans with Cha 17+. The paladin evolved into any race, any alignment, with two digit charisma. I didn't like it but, even I must admit, the paladin is still going strong. Paladin would probably survive even if LG was the only alignment explicitly banned!

 

[I'm A Banana]

If Fighters are the generals, captains, guards, soldiers, cavalry, and archers of the world, in my view, Paladins are the noble knights.

They stand for high ideals. They have a code of honor. They have the power of something greater behind them. I like the Authurian feel of the classic D&D paladin, but for me the paladin sort of overlaps with a concept like the Samurai. Chivalry or Bushido, the important thing to note is that they stand fully apart from "common folks." They are held to higher standards, they have greater responsibility, and they have higher aspirations. It's the concept of a noble warrior, as opposed to the Fighter's more "rough and tumble" ideal.

Thus, I don't see them as tethered to deities or the Lawful Good alignment necessarily. I do see them tethered to the social order necessarily -- defy the nobility, and you are likely to go "ronin." And as much as gods (in non-D&D) are intrinsically part of the social order historically, they carry deific baggage with them.

In combat, I imagine them as the first-one-in, last-one-out types. Endurance and helping your allies are the strong suits. They might be the type to break out with big holy explosions when the going gets especially tough. (overall combat: B)

In social interaction, I imagine them as suave, idealized, and persuasive. Because of their position, and because of their charisma, and because of their wisdom, and because of their influence, and because of their honorable codes, they are very good at getting people to their side (overall social: A)

In exploration, I imagine them as mounted. I imagine them as capable of determining safe from foolish rather well, and to have a strong sense of the Right Path (divination). This really isn't their strong suit - though wise, they rely mostly on taking the safe path rather than blazing through a difficult trail (overall exploration: D).

 

[RangerWickett]

Put up whatever weird requirements you want for the word 'Paladin.' Just make sure the game also allows for a divinely-inspired warrior who sprints around lightly-armored, hiding and shooting arrows at the forces of evil. Doesn't have to be called a paladin, but it should be possible.

 

[Grydan]

With all of the talk about what paladins are, or should be, or must be that's been bouncing around, I'd been curious as to the background of what paladins were meant to represent in the game.

It is my understanding, and feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, that the primary inspiration for the paladin is one specific character. Just like how the ranger was inspired by Strider/Aragorn from Lord of the Rings, the paladin was inspired primarily by Holger Carlsen from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions.

So I tracked down a copy and read it. It's quite fun, and for something written over a decade before D&D came into existence, it's very easy to see how it influenced the game.

A conflict between Law and Chaos. A mighty warrior (referred to multiple times as a paladin, other times as a knight) drawn into the conflict. A loyal steed. A quite literally named "magic weapon", the Dagger of Burning. A named sword. Dragons, werewolves, dwarves, elves, faerie, witches, and so on and so forth. A tunic that allows someone to change shape. The troll in the story is very clearly the primary inspiration for D&D's trolls.

What struck me, however, is how poorly Holger Carlsen would be modelled by most versions of the paladin, throughout the history of the game. Maybe even all of them. In fact, most of the descriptions offered in this thread about what a paladin is or should be would kick him to the curb.

I don't particularly care what the paladin turns out to be, though I hope alignment remains strictly optional. It just amuses me that the character I had been lead to believe inspired the class apparently couldn't qualify by most people's standards.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Frankly, paladins are a problem. They're such a D&D-ism that we'll never lose them, but they cause all kinds of problems, both from a mechanical gameplay perspective and from a roleplaying perspective.

Honestly, I hope they just make it the equivalent of a prestige class for fighters, or at least do some kind of generic knight and make the paladin only one possible option.

The important definitional issues are:
*Attacks directly with weapons
*Favors heavy armor
*Good with mounts
*Strong social abilties
*Great defenses
*Some kind of code

Honestly, if they make anything reverent of the old edition paladins I'll just ban it anyway.

 

[trancejeremy]

With all of the talk about what paladins are, or should be, or must be that's been bouncing around, I'd been curious as to the background of what paladins were meant to represent in the game.

It is my understanding, and feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, that the primary inspiration for the paladin is one specific character. Just like how the ranger was inspired by Strider/Aragorn from Lord of the Rings, the paladin was inspired primarily by Holger Carlsen from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions.

So I tracked down a copy and read it. It's quite fun, and for something written over a decade before D&D came into existence, it's very easy to see how it influenced the game.

A conflict between Law and Chaos. A mighty warrior (referred to multiple times as a paladin, other times as a knight) drawn into the conflict. A loyal steed. A quite literally named "magic weapon", the Dagger of Burning. A named sword. Dragons, werewolves, dwarves, elves, faerie, witches, and so on and so forth. A tunic that allows someone to change shape. The troll in the story is very clearly the primary inspiration for D&D's trolls.

What struck me, however, is how poorly Holger Carlsen would be modelled by most versions of the paladin, throughout the history of the game. Maybe even all of them. In fact, most of the descriptions offered in this thread about what a paladin is or should be would kick him to the curb.

I don't particularly care what the paladin turns out to be, though I hope alignment remains strictly optional. It just amuses me that the character I had been lead to believe inspired the class apparently couldn't qualify by most people's standards.

Paladins were the peers of Charlemagne. Essentially the equivalent of King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table.

Bullfinch (the folklore/mythology guy) has a whole book about their exploits.

Holgar Carlsen was Ogier the Dane, who was enspelled by Morgana le Fey. 3 of Hearts, 3 of Lions was basically a sequel to that legend.

I'm not sure how the original paladin didn't fit him - he was a champion of law (and good) battling the forces of chaos (and evil, he fought nazis while in the real world), had that magical warhorse, a holy avenger sword (Curtana)

 

[shamsael]

First and foremost a fighter is a fighter is a fighter. From there you make small changes to reflect the niche the sub class fits into.

Everybody fights!

The concept of fighter is too broad. I'd like to see it refracted into its archetypes, Cavalier, Weapon Master, Berserker, Duelist, Archer, Soldier, Brawler, etc. If, for the sake of nostalgia, one of these archetypes retains the name "fighter" I don't mind, but I see the concept of "fighter" being much broader and less defined (for that matter definable) than the term "spell caster".

I think the paladin is more than just a hybrid cleric/fighter or a specialized version of either. Paladins heal, as do Clerics, but they do so in a very different way from clerics, just as they control the battlefield and deal damage in a very different way than a fighter.

 

[boredgremlin]

I dont see any great need to have a huge differentiation mechanically between the fighter and the paladin. Its a flavor choice.

To me the new paladin should be a martially focused class thats not as good at martial as the straight fighter with some divinely inspired magical abilities.

Some sort of magical smiting, some sort of protection against magic and at least a moderate ability to proselytize their faith successfully what should be core Paladin abilities.

Other then that I think they should get a few mystic/divine bennies that vary based on their faith and players can customize and call it a day.


Rather then going to books I'm going to give my example of a paladin as Luke Skywalker. Solo was the fighter, Luke was the paladin.

What were the differences other then choice of weapons? Solo was arguably better with a wide variety of weapons and had no powers.

Skywalker focused on one weapon and got a pretty minor telekinesis and telepathy power.

Really nothing he did would mechanically be stronger then a 2nd or 3rd level spell historically for the editions. And yet does anyone have trouble seeing that the Jedi is a holy warrior and Solo and the storm troopers are fighters even though theres little mechanical difference?

I would be just as happy seeing Paladin as a prestige class type of thing but if its going to be a core class why does there need to be a huge difference between them and a fighter other then flavor?

 

[TarionzCousin]

In 5e, I hope I get my warriors of virtue back. Mind you, if I were to start from a clean slate, I probably wouldn't have a separate paladin class. I'd start with a basic fighter and offer the paladin abilities through a series of divine boons which the character must earn. Wouldn't that be an interesting solo adventure path?

Yes, it would.

What about having a minimum of elements for the Core paladin and adding some feats, themes, and options as extras? I could support:

A. Auras, as in Diablo 2.
B. An Avenger style paladin who gets to roll two d20's with every attack and take the best roll. Could they balance this? Maybe not, but it was my favorite innovation in 4E and it was fun.
C. Non-melee paladins, such as a ranged paladin or the 3E FR Divine Seeker (?) that was a holy thief.
D. Other stuff I can't think of right now.