D&D 5E The Paladin excerpt

[Kobold Avenger]

Another of the upsides of the loosening of alignment and Paladin conduct, is that that many of those hypothetical Paladin no-win moral dilemmas will no longer cause a loss of Paladin-hood.

Also there really isn't much of a need for Holy Liberators (the CG Paladin-like prestige class) anymore.

 

[Syunsuke]

Paladin the Happiness Officer.
"Happiness is mandatory, Citizen. Are you happy?"

 

[garydee]

I don't understand what the designers were thinking with the Paladin. The paladin is really weak compared to the fighter at fist level. Fighting style and second wind outshine the Paladin's two abilities by far(going by the alpha). However, at second level the paladin more than makes up for it and you might say is overly stacked. Why didn't they just move one of those abilities from 2nd level to 1st level and create a better balanced Paladin?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Am I the only one that cringed and then face palmed over the half-orc paladin?

I cringed too.

Firstly, when will there be a picture of say a paladin not wearing chunky armour, or super intricately detailed gear that must catch & jingle, or having a stocky build, or even being, oh I don't know, human and/or male?

I'd have to go back to 2E for this image. Hmmm, that's what 15 years ago? Diversity can mean that a sample of the base archetype can still be included too.

Then a roaring comic-styled half-orc? I guess we're trying to say paladins come in all kinds of shapes (but going by recent history never human or male).

Well I guess I should be grateful it's at least on par with the substandard 3E class entry image and much better than the 4E calamity.

Very unimpressive image-wise.

****

Fortunately the actual class write-up sharply contrasts with the image.

 

[Grazzt]

I remember a really cool Dragon Mag cover from the early 2000s with a half orc paladin on the cover.

Issue #275

 

[Morentis]

I don't understand what the designers were thinking with the Paladin. The paladin is really weak compared to the fighter at fist level. Fighting style and second wind outshine the Paladin's two abilities by far(going by the alpha). However, at second level the paladin more than makes up for it and you might say is overly stacked. Why didn't they just move one of those abilities from 2nd level to 1st level and create a better balanced Paladin?

While I haven't compared the fighter and the paladin myself, I would guess it's because the developers expect that no one will stay at 1st level very long, and that it's partly a "test flight" phase that characters will pass after a couple encounters (assuming they live, of course).

 

[pemerton]

So you can be a non-LG paladin, but it means you're bad at your job? I don't think that really fits what the "any alignment" supporters were wanting. I hope this isn't one of those "compromises that makes nobody happy".

In the last playtest, the fluff strongly implied Lawful Good, but did not actually mention alignment anywhere. That way, an old-school DM could point to the fluff and be like "look, it says you've sworn an oath to uphold justice. That means you have to be Lawful Good." Meanwhile, if a DM didn't care, well, there's nothing there that says you can't be any alignment that you want...

In this one, it explicitly says paladins can be any alignment. So, it doesn't make the old-school DM happy. At the same time, it says that non-good alignments don't match the oaths, so that doesn't make the any-alignment-you-want crowd happy.

I think I count as a member of the "any-alignment-you-want-crowd". And there was nothing there that offended me. The remarks about alignment and oaths don't strike me as any different, in basic orientation, then the discussion of variant powers for evil paladins in the 4e DMG (which thereby recognises that, as written up in the 4e PHB, paladins are oriented towards heroism rather than villainy).

I actually feel like the fluff being so pro-good is a nice olive branch to more "traditionalist" players, who prefer paladins being LG only.

Paladins of vengeance are called out as "embittered loners". That doesn't sound very LG to me. I would assume that traditionalists won't allow (PC) paladins of vengeance.

Here is how you build a non magic Paladin, take the Acylote Background, then take either Champion ir Battlemaster fighters focusing on defensive, protective, and healing features. Call yourself a Paladin. Done.

[MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] didn't say he wanted a non-magical paladin. He said he wanted a non-spellcasting option. Those are quite different things.

Do the three paladins described in the beginning seem to go with the three oaths as described?

I haven't read anything but this excerpt, but they seemed to: the elf is a champion of the light (ancients); the healer is a holy knight (cavalier? whatever the "standard" paladin is called); the dwarf is an embittered loner (vengeance).

Isn't a paladin whatever a group wants it to be?

I think so.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

All looks good to me. The manages to just barely stay on the right side of World of Warcraft's gaudy paladins, just keeping it real enough, but really giving a sort of feeling of the immanent (in it's holy sense).

As an "all alignments" guy, I like the text, too. I'm fine with Paladins being "rarely evil". It makes those exceptions all the more juicy as NPC villains and the like.

The only slight (and it is slight) frown-y face is the deal where you effectively have to choose your Oath at L1, but you don't ACTUALLY choose your Oath until L3, which strikes me as an odd mismatch of rules and concept. Particularly as they did, at least in Basic, make it so Clerics made their god-choice at L1, which seems on-par in significance with the Oath.

Still, good stuff!

(Edit - also wow, I hadn't really noticed before just HOW MANY spells Paladins get! It's a lot!)

 

[Phoenix8008]

Joking aside this does make my idea of a warlock/paladin multiclass a little more interesting. Bound to Hell, but trying for Heaven....

John Constantine!!

I love how they've worked this out! I love the option of not living up to your ideals as a character. Even more role-playing fodder.

 

[pemerton]

The only slight (and it is slight) frown-y face is the deal where you effectively have to choose your Oath at L1, but you don't ACTUALLY choose your Oath until L3, which strikes me as an odd mismatch of rules and concept.

I agree that this is a mismatch of rules and concept. My preferred solution would be to choose an oath at 1st level, and have that give you LoH if you're a regular (holy knight) paladin but something different for avengers (perhaps a damage buff) and ancients (less clear - maybe a stat check buff?).