Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dykstrav" data-source="post: 3168769" data-attributes="member: 40522">What I like about the paladin:1) There should be a base class in D&D that represents an elite champion of good. Mythology, folklore, and literature (especially fantasy literature) is replete with the idea that the forces of good are fewer in number, but of higher quality and moral worth than the forces of evil. The paladin is a strong nod that D&D is supposed to be a game about heroes.2) Paladins are generally well-liked in the campaign setting. Unless they are traveling in obviously evil lands such as the Empire of Iuz, paladins can expect a warm reception wherever they go. Paladins bring hope and comfort to the masses of the campaign world that can't be adventurers.3) Paladins make great leaders. Their strong passion for good and high Charisma scores makes them ideal for this role.4) The paladin's class abilities are focused on making him a mailed fist against evil. Smite evil helps wail on almost anything the paladin is likely to fight. Detect evil allows him to be sure that he doesn't waste his smites. Divine grace lets him shrug off the effects of virutally anything that requires a saving throw.5) It's satisfying to play a paladin. Sure, you have Diplomacy as a class skill, but you're empowered and inclined to crack some evil-doer skulls. Parties that have to fight evil critters will likely appreciate having you around.What I do not like about the paladin:1) The paladin doesn't really excel at anything. He's a good front-line fighter against specific types of enemies: things like evil dragons, liches, et cetera. He can make a turn undead check or two and cast a few spells, but there are other classes that can do these things better. These traits conspire to make him feel like a second-string character when he shouldn't be stepping on the cleric's toes.2) I REALLY don't like the paladin's mount, especially the 3.5 version. It works in a Romance/fairy tale type of game, but how often do D&D characters really engage in mounted combat? I've been replacing this class feature since 1E. Currently I let the paladin select two feats (one has to be a divine feat and one has to be drawn from the fighter list of bonus feats) when he reaches 5th level instead of getting the bonded mount. Players really seem to jump at getting more feats over a mount.3) Most players seem to think paladins are tea-drinking sticks-in-the-mud. Paladins are lawful good, not lawful stupid. "Acting with honor" doesn't mean that you can't set up an ambush or flank an enemy. "Respecting legitimate authority" doesn't mean that you can't fight the king of a lawful evil nation. "Helping those in need" doesn't mean that the DM should endanger helpless peasants every time he wants to get the ball rolling on an adventure. Does anyone really think that a paladin is breaking his code of conduct if he's on the way to fight a dragon and he won't stop to help a little girl find her lost kitten? The code of conduct is too vague, it needs more specifics.4) The paladin doesn't get enough skill points in my opinion. The paladin is supposed to be a cultured warrior. He should at least get Perform as a class skill so he can serenade his beloved and dance with her at the royal ball.5) The paladin is still culture-specific. The class is based on the fairy tale/Romance idea of the knight and it shows. As written, the paladin still feels like an Arthurian type of character. Even the bard and druid have been made generic and still work well in a Celtic-flavored campaign. I really think the paladin would appeal to alot more players if he was more an 'elite champion of good' rather than a 'knight in shining armor.'</blockquote>

Verification