-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Paladins - likes and dislikes?
- Thread starter TheLe
- Start date
CrusaderX
First Post
My favorite class! In theory, if not in practice! 
Likes:
- I love the holy warrior archetype, and I'm glad that Paladins MUST be Lawful Good. I strongly dislike the notion of watered-down "Paladins" of other alignments, so I'm glad that the alignment restriction is still part of the RAW (and I hope this continues in future editions). Yes, there should be holy warriors of other alignments. Just don't call them Paladins.
- Most of the 3.5 class features are pretty good. I really like the new 3.5 Mount options (sure, they're somewhat hokey, but the flexibility was definitely needed), though I'm also glad the Players Handbook II gives a strong option for non-mounted Paladins.
Dislikes:
- I wish the Players Handbook talked a bit more about their Code, and gave options for slightly different codes, as all Paladins need not be played the exact same way. More explantion here would help solve alot of the Paladin problems that turn up frequently on internet message boards.
- Their spellcasting level is too weak. They should have a spellcasting level of Level - 2, rather than Level / 2 (this goes for Rangers, too).
- I'd like to see their Smites be a bit more powerful, though the PHII optional class feature helps in this regard.
- Remove Disease is poorly implemented. Just make it a Paladin spell already.
- I'd like to see the class get some Divine Feats as part of their class abilities as they level up.
- This isn't the fault of this class, but I feel that the Knight class in the PHII is too similar thematically to the Paladin. I'd rather see the Knight class features as options for Paladins (and other Fighter-types), rather than being features of an all new class.
Overall, the 3.5 Paladin is good, but I feel he needs an overall boost in power to justify the other restrictions of the class.
Likes:
- I love the holy warrior archetype, and I'm glad that Paladins MUST be Lawful Good. I strongly dislike the notion of watered-down "Paladins" of other alignments, so I'm glad that the alignment restriction is still part of the RAW (and I hope this continues in future editions). Yes, there should be holy warriors of other alignments. Just don't call them Paladins.
- Most of the 3.5 class features are pretty good. I really like the new 3.5 Mount options (sure, they're somewhat hokey, but the flexibility was definitely needed), though I'm also glad the Players Handbook II gives a strong option for non-mounted Paladins.
Dislikes:
- I wish the Players Handbook talked a bit more about their Code, and gave options for slightly different codes, as all Paladins need not be played the exact same way. More explantion here would help solve alot of the Paladin problems that turn up frequently on internet message boards.
- Their spellcasting level is too weak. They should have a spellcasting level of Level - 2, rather than Level / 2 (this goes for Rangers, too).
- I'd like to see their Smites be a bit more powerful, though the PHII optional class feature helps in this regard.
- Remove Disease is poorly implemented. Just make it a Paladin spell already.
- I'd like to see the class get some Divine Feats as part of their class abilities as they level up.
- This isn't the fault of this class, but I feel that the Knight class in the PHII is too similar thematically to the Paladin. I'd rather see the Knight class features as options for Paladins (and other Fighter-types), rather than being features of an all new class.
Overall, the 3.5 Paladin is good, but I feel he needs an overall boost in power to justify the other restrictions of the class.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Plane Sailing said:
I suppose.
Probably my biggest problem with the Paladin is that it competes in the same "ecological niche" as a LG FighterX/Cleric1 or FighterX/Cleric3. IMHO either the spellcasting should be beefed up or removed entirely in trade for some decent special abilities (not the anemic ones presented in the WotC alternatives).
Choranzanus
Explorer
In general I like paladin. I encountered "lawful stupid" stereotype only on internet, so they should probably rewrite that part. Paladin cannot force his code of honor on other people, he is supposed to act as an *example* to them. That is why he has high charisma (charisma is paladin's #1 ability, in my opinion).
LIKES:
- He fights reasonably well in comparison with barbarian and fighter (unlike ranger)
- Good saves and some imunities (fear, disease....why these?)
- That it is not a prestige class
- Healing
- I'm not really sure if smite evil works with great cleave, but we played that it does
- I like the flavor. I believe it takes a certain type of player to play paladin (much like a bard)
- MAD. Can't say I like it, but I understand it; and as already pointed out you don't need that high wisdom - I usually start at 12.
DISLIKE
- Detect evil: either can be abused, or DM will rule it out
- More smiting please
- Cure disease: does not fit with holy warrior archetype
- Pokemount: weird
Of course, the real test of all these classes is how they compare with fighter/cleric or fighter/druid (in case of ranger). That is one of the reasons why I like various immunities and auras and special attacks like smite a lot more than spells and other cleric things.
LIKES:
- He fights reasonably well in comparison with barbarian and fighter (unlike ranger)
- Good saves and some imunities (fear, disease....why these?)
- That it is not a prestige class
- Healing
- I'm not really sure if smite evil works with great cleave, but we played that it does
- I like the flavor. I believe it takes a certain type of player to play paladin (much like a bard)
- MAD. Can't say I like it, but I understand it; and as already pointed out you don't need that high wisdom - I usually start at 12.
DISLIKE
- Detect evil: either can be abused, or DM will rule it out
- More smiting please
- Cure disease: does not fit with holy warrior archetype
- Pokemount: weird
Of course, the real test of all these classes is how they compare with fighter/cleric or fighter/druid (in case of ranger). That is one of the reasons why I like various immunities and auras and special attacks like smite a lot more than spells and other cleric things.
Gargoyle
Adventurer
I like most things about the 3.5 paladin, including the mount, but instead of a core class, I think it should be a prestige class instead with the requirement of adhering to the code of conduct. That would give players a chance to establish an understanding with their DM on what being lawful good is all about, and how to properly live by the code.
As a minor quibble, I would like to see remove disease replaced with something more combat related, possibly with some more interesting auras.
As a minor quibble, I would like to see remove disease replaced with something more combat related, possibly with some more interesting auras.
pawsplay
Hero
I like the fact that their code, combined with detect evil, often means they must DO SOMETHING. Paladins can never slide by morally. Sometimes they have to make difficult decisions, but they absolutely cannot gloss over them. Whether they kill the orc babies or spare them, they can't do it with a flip of the coin.
I like their emphasis on Charisma.
I do like the picture of the guy in armor with a big, nasty weapon smiting evil.
I do not like their emphasis on a mount, which in my opinion should be more like a perk than an important feature. I do not like their lack of options in ranged combat.
As a class with an alignment restriction who could be stripped of their powers for expedient choices, I believe they should be a prestige class. It would be nice to have a suite of core abilities under the paladinhood to fall back on... as it stands now, paladins face very little temptatation to do evil, since it means the loss of essentially all their abilities. If a paladin were cornered into forsaking paladinhood, it's time to either abandon the character or head directly to Holy Liberator or, more likely, Blackguard. Their moral struggle is less interesting, in that only expedience tempts the paladin, never power itself.
They have kind of a split personality. They are both emodiments of Good and severe, lawful justicars. I think, both for game purposes and as a nod to the fantasy genre, they might work better with less saintliness and more smitiness. In many ways, a cleric of St. Cuthbert is a superior character at fulfilling the archetype of the stern crusader filled with holiness. I know that they are heavily influenced by Sir Galahad, and probably Paksenarrion as well at this point, and especially Joan of Arc... but I do not know if a pure flower of virtue, who happens to be a deadly swordsman, is workable as a common archetype, because it is very demanding. Such characters in literature are as likely to die of martyrdom as they are cutting their way out of a dragon's gut.
I think "does not associate with evil characters" is a stupid requirement. Evil, most of all, needs the companionship of a moral exemplar. If the paladin slides into becoming less good himself, that is already covered by his alignment restrictions.
I like their emphasis on Charisma.
I do like the picture of the guy in armor with a big, nasty weapon smiting evil.
I do not like their emphasis on a mount, which in my opinion should be more like a perk than an important feature. I do not like their lack of options in ranged combat.
As a class with an alignment restriction who could be stripped of their powers for expedient choices, I believe they should be a prestige class. It would be nice to have a suite of core abilities under the paladinhood to fall back on... as it stands now, paladins face very little temptatation to do evil, since it means the loss of essentially all their abilities. If a paladin were cornered into forsaking paladinhood, it's time to either abandon the character or head directly to Holy Liberator or, more likely, Blackguard. Their moral struggle is less interesting, in that only expedience tempts the paladin, never power itself.
They have kind of a split personality. They are both emodiments of Good and severe, lawful justicars. I think, both for game purposes and as a nod to the fantasy genre, they might work better with less saintliness and more smitiness. In many ways, a cleric of St. Cuthbert is a superior character at fulfilling the archetype of the stern crusader filled with holiness. I know that they are heavily influenced by Sir Galahad, and probably Paksenarrion as well at this point, and especially Joan of Arc... but I do not know if a pure flower of virtue, who happens to be a deadly swordsman, is workable as a common archetype, because it is very demanding. Such characters in literature are as likely to die of martyrdom as they are cutting their way out of a dragon's gut.
I think "does not associate with evil characters" is a stupid requirement. Evil, most of all, needs the companionship of a moral exemplar. If the paladin slides into becoming less good himself, that is already covered by his alignment restrictions.
Aus_Snow
First Post
I like smiting, some version of divine grace & health, lay on hands, good BAB, good HD, good armour, martial weapons, code of conduct, MAD.
I don't like the mount class feature, remove disease, "sacred cow"-like insistence on Lawful Good and Lawful Good only. There should be Paladins of (at least) each of the three flavours of Good. Or one Paladin class with slight variation according to ethical persuasion; either way. Paladins for each of the nine alignments might be even better.
The spells are ok but not essential, in my opinion. But in the end, they add a good amount of flavour and a little bit of flexibility to a class that frankly needs it.
Divine grace could be toned down, I think, and base saves could be somewhat different (good Will saves, perhaps?)
I don't like the mount class feature, remove disease, "sacred cow"-like insistence on Lawful Good and Lawful Good only. There should be Paladins of (at least) each of the three flavours of Good. Or one Paladin class with slight variation according to ethical persuasion; either way. Paladins for each of the nine alignments might be even better.
The spells are ok but not essential, in my opinion. But in the end, they add a good amount of flavour and a little bit of flexibility to a class that frankly needs it.
Divine grace could be toned down, I think, and base saves could be somewhat different (good Will saves, perhaps?)
babomb said:
yup, thats right.
and I dislike the emphasis on the mount. it seesm to push players towards the idea that paladins are mounted knight types, but the class doesnt include any other mounted combat extras. Theres no reason why you couldnt have all sorts of different paladin styles, not just a european mounted knight with a code of condust.
Also,I dont get why people interpret the code of condust so narrowly, as its pretty vague. I agree with the person who said its similiar to what any LG cleric would have as a code of conduct.
heres what it says in the rules:
"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents".
Theres nothing in there about no sneakyness. If paladin wants to disguise themselves as an orc and knock off a few sentries while breaking into an enemy dungeon thats fine by this DM. A Paladin who "grossly violates" the code of conduct is in trouble, but notics it says "grossly", whicjh means that it shouldnt apply to the odd bit of sneakyness during an adventure. It would apply if the paladin spent a long period of time working undercover and deceiving people over a long period of time, or fighting behind enemy lines dressed in enemy uniform for example. It would apply if they killed sentrys and guards while sneaking around when knocking them out and tieing them up was a perfectly sensible alternative. But its shouldnt restrict a characters ability to use intelligent tactics in a fight or adventure.
Martian Agitator
First Post
A little advice on detect evil.
It should never, ever be run as a binary thing, Evil/Not Evil, but instead be used as a "sixth sense" that gives non-specific information to the paladin and creates texture in the world, i.e.:
UNSURE
Dan DM (as Frank Farmer): "Howdy!"
Peter Paladin-Player: Detect Evil!
Dan DM (grumbling): Yeah, he's a bad guy.
SURE
Peter Paladin-Player: Detect Evil!
Dan DM (knowing Frank Farmer is the killer): You feel like cold water is running down your arms and a metallic scent bites the air.
OR
Dan DM (knowing Frank Farmer is about to rip them off): You feel a tingling, sparking sensation on your palms and fingertips.
OR
Dan DM (knowing that an evil vrock is hiding in the barn to the left of Peter's PC, though Frank Farmer has no idea): Your temples throb and a hot sensation licks at the left side of your face like a flame. You begin bleeding from the ears and nose.
Remember when Frodo puts on the ring? That world of rushing shadows and screamy things? Thats the world that a paladin taps into, only he can't use his eyes to tell what's going on. Or, he sees things no one else can: after rescuing the baby, Peter detects-evil the parents. He sees the skin melt off their faces, their eye sockets empty to black hollows and watches the skeleton-parents rip their own bones apart until they are groaning pile of dust. Still gonna leave that baby with it's folks, Pete? What's your code say about abandoning an innocent? But you can't prove that they're gonna screw with the kid, can you? Because you don't know for sure if it's the parents that are evil or if something evil is happening to them that's out of their control. Mwahahaha.
Rick Swan's 2E Complete Guide to Paladins introduced this concept for detect evil to me, and that book is definately the greatest resource for Paladins ever. The ability is even more important in 3E because of the Smite Evil ability; consider the above scene with the vrock in the barn.
Say it turns out Frank Farmer is an alter ego for Roger Resistance Fighter. The PCs are in his house, find large amounts of weapons and armed people, as well as a few hostages. Now these hostages are sheriffs and guardsmen who have been carrying out the king's evil orders - but they are not evil themselves. Roger Resistance Fighter and his Corny Crew attack the PCs thinking that they are sent to rescue the hostages. Peter Paladin-Paladin, remembering the nose bleed and fiery feeling, thinks "Hey, this guy detected evil, I'll blow a Smite on him, no problem." Smite fizzles. Peter Paladin-Player goes, "Whoa!" and tries to calm everyone down and parley to figure out the sitch. A cool situation only deliverable by a paladin character.
With detect evil, smite evil, and a watchful god, the paladin is the moral barometer, which is an interesting role to fill in a world with discrete morality. Its a cool thing for a paladin to be, and should be treated in the same way 2E swashbucklers came with the "strange luck" clause. Paladins should always be doing the right thing (or always following the code, should you decide paladins can be other alignments than LG) and part of paladin adventures should be using that moral barometer and having it work perfectly sometimes and having it backfire others. And because they should always be doing the right thing, it should be hardest for them to do it and they will be plagued with dilemmas and an insurmountable foe or two; so they perhaps deserve a little self-sufficiency on their Quest for Truth.
That's the niche of the paladin I like, and why I think detect evil and smite evil are the most intrinsic and paladin-y abilities. Thus the most important facet of paladins is the "find evil, swat it" hook. Like rangers are the bloodhounds of the forest, paladins are the supernaturally inspired bloodhounds of good.
I am redesigning the paladin with this in mind.
Also, I like adding Intimidate to the paladin's skill list: its an interesting tactic to use against enemies, but if he accidentally uses it against someone far weaker than him or is otherwise belligerent to good people, he would have to atone a little, perhaps doing a service for the wronged. Cool.
It should never, ever be run as a binary thing, Evil/Not Evil, but instead be used as a "sixth sense" that gives non-specific information to the paladin and creates texture in the world, i.e.:
UNSURE
Dan DM (as Frank Farmer): "Howdy!"
Peter Paladin-Player: Detect Evil!
Dan DM (grumbling): Yeah, he's a bad guy.
SURE
Peter Paladin-Player: Detect Evil!
Dan DM (knowing Frank Farmer is the killer): You feel like cold water is running down your arms and a metallic scent bites the air.
OR
Dan DM (knowing Frank Farmer is about to rip them off): You feel a tingling, sparking sensation on your palms and fingertips.
OR
Dan DM (knowing that an evil vrock is hiding in the barn to the left of Peter's PC, though Frank Farmer has no idea): Your temples throb and a hot sensation licks at the left side of your face like a flame. You begin bleeding from the ears and nose.
Remember when Frodo puts on the ring? That world of rushing shadows and screamy things? Thats the world that a paladin taps into, only he can't use his eyes to tell what's going on. Or, he sees things no one else can: after rescuing the baby, Peter detects-evil the parents. He sees the skin melt off their faces, their eye sockets empty to black hollows and watches the skeleton-parents rip their own bones apart until they are groaning pile of dust. Still gonna leave that baby with it's folks, Pete? What's your code say about abandoning an innocent? But you can't prove that they're gonna screw with the kid, can you? Because you don't know for sure if it's the parents that are evil or if something evil is happening to them that's out of their control. Mwahahaha.
Rick Swan's 2E Complete Guide to Paladins introduced this concept for detect evil to me, and that book is definately the greatest resource for Paladins ever. The ability is even more important in 3E because of the Smite Evil ability; consider the above scene with the vrock in the barn.
Say it turns out Frank Farmer is an alter ego for Roger Resistance Fighter. The PCs are in his house, find large amounts of weapons and armed people, as well as a few hostages. Now these hostages are sheriffs and guardsmen who have been carrying out the king's evil orders - but they are not evil themselves. Roger Resistance Fighter and his Corny Crew attack the PCs thinking that they are sent to rescue the hostages. Peter Paladin-Paladin, remembering the nose bleed and fiery feeling, thinks "Hey, this guy detected evil, I'll blow a Smite on him, no problem." Smite fizzles. Peter Paladin-Player goes, "Whoa!" and tries to calm everyone down and parley to figure out the sitch. A cool situation only deliverable by a paladin character.
With detect evil, smite evil, and a watchful god, the paladin is the moral barometer, which is an interesting role to fill in a world with discrete morality. Its a cool thing for a paladin to be, and should be treated in the same way 2E swashbucklers came with the "strange luck" clause. Paladins should always be doing the right thing (or always following the code, should you decide paladins can be other alignments than LG) and part of paladin adventures should be using that moral barometer and having it work perfectly sometimes and having it backfire others. And because they should always be doing the right thing, it should be hardest for them to do it and they will be plagued with dilemmas and an insurmountable foe or two; so they perhaps deserve a little self-sufficiency on their Quest for Truth.
That's the niche of the paladin I like, and why I think detect evil and smite evil are the most intrinsic and paladin-y abilities. Thus the most important facet of paladins is the "find evil, swat it" hook. Like rangers are the bloodhounds of the forest, paladins are the supernaturally inspired bloodhounds of good.
I am redesigning the paladin with this in mind.
Also, I like adding Intimidate to the paladin's skill list: its an interesting tactic to use against enemies, but if he accidentally uses it against someone far weaker than him or is otherwise belligerent to good people, he would have to atone a little, perhaps doing a service for the wronged. Cool.
Similar Threads
