So, I absolutely love what I'm seeing here, but I do have one tiny nitpick. (Said nitpick applies even more to the ranger, working under the assumption that the ranger follows a similar pattern.)
I was really hoping that the game had left room for future non-spell-casting rangers and paladins through the use of subclasses. (I loved the 4E martial ranger as an option.) That would've been fairly smooth, simple to accomplish.
But it appears paladins (and rangers?) get spells a level before they choose their subclass. Which means, if there ever is to be a spell-less option, it'll require something clunkier/more encompassing than just a new subclass.
As I said, that's me being picky. I'm a huge fan of what we've seen so far, paladin-wise. I just could've been an even huger one.
I've come around on rangers since the 5e fighter and rogue look capable of managing most of what you'd want from a non-magical ranger, but I too was hoping for a spell-free paladin. Oh well. One consolation: in the alpha, smite is powered by spell slots, so if you're stubborn enough you can just refuse to memorize spells and smite every round!