Sonofapreacherman
Explorer
You said it Lily. Power gaming is usually reason number one for playing either class. Role-playing frequently falls by the way-side.
The (quintessential) paladin prestige class
- Thread starter Sonofapreacherman
- Start date
Jerrid Al-Kundo
First Post
Looks fairly decent...
Of course, I may be biased; In 2E, I had ruled it that you had to dual-class into Paladin after proving your character was up to the task, and for the same reasons you've seen to have encountered (although I have met a few that were actually good at role-playing Paladins). Progression into a PClass for 3E seems like a natural evolution of this same rule, and I am intending to do a similar working, but involving mutliple classes for specific campaign religions. This will permit for more champion types beyond LG and CE.
Of course, I may be biased; In 2E, I had ruled it that you had to dual-class into Paladin after proving your character was up to the task, and for the same reasons you've seen to have encountered (although I have met a few that were actually good at role-playing Paladins). Progression into a PClass for 3E seems like a natural evolution of this same rule, and I am intending to do a similar working, but involving mutliple classes for specific campaign religions. This will permit for more champion types beyond LG and CE.
Lily Inverse
First Post
Jerid
For "Standard" champions you have the "Divine" prestiege classes from the FRCS book. Although I suspect you want something a little more customized than that.
For "Standard" champions you have the "Divine" prestiege classes from the FRCS book. Although I suspect you want something a little more customized than that.
Jerrid Al-Kundo
First Post
Yep... 
Honestly, though, I personally wouldn't do a "generic" Paladin PClass, but would do one for every deity capable of supporting a paladin. This then becomes more narrow, however, as deities that aren't Lawful Good (Default Examples: Pelor, Cuthbert) would begin to sponsor champions of their own Alignments.
But that's just the way I'll be doing it myself; Again, as an addition to Core, SoaPM's model is rather nice.
Honestly, though, I personally wouldn't do a "generic" Paladin PClass, but would do one for every deity capable of supporting a paladin. This then becomes more narrow, however, as deities that aren't Lawful Good (Default Examples: Pelor, Cuthbert) would begin to sponsor champions of their own Alignments.
But that's just the way I'll be doing it myself; Again, as an addition to Core, SoaPM's model is rather nice.
Sonofapreacherman
Explorer
Well, if anybody is interested, I can send you a formatted PDF of this paladin. Simply click on my Email address (sonofapreacherman@telus.net) and send me a request. I'll send the paladin right back to you as a file attachment.
Improved Disarm?
Yes, I understand the whole non-lethal combat premise. But even so...consider the prerequisities: Expertise. What does Expertise require? Intelligence 13.
Now, I'm not a huge subscriber to the 'Lawful Stupid' school of paladinhood, but it seems bizarre that all paladins should have an Intelligence of at least 13 (especially seeing that the archetypal paladin uses Int as the dump stat). But more to the point, should paladinhood really restrict people based on Intelligence? I think not.
Bravery, honesty, honour and the like are the qualities of paladinhood. Genius, study and logic are not strictly. The Improved Disarm requirement phases out a lot of the most dutiful people who could qualify for paladinhood, merely because they are too stupid. This is an intellectual elitism that seems out of place for paladinhood.
Leadership is another odd choice. The questing paladin may have a squire, but is this paladin really (at high level) strictly going to have an army of retainers? I don't think that they should. Not all paladins of legend (e.g. Knights of the Round Table) were served by cohorts of followers, and the ones in DnD should not have this requirement either.
Feat selection is necessary for a prestige class, but the question is which ones? Perhaps Mounted Combat, perhaps Endurance, perhaps Weapon Focus (it is for the Templar), or Smooth Talk (FR) or even Skill Focus (Heal). Improved Disarm, which cuts out all paladins of average and lower intellect; and Leadership, which necessarily negates the 'questing' hero archetype, seem inappropriate.
Yes, I understand the whole non-lethal combat premise. But even so...consider the prerequisities: Expertise. What does Expertise require? Intelligence 13.
Now, I'm not a huge subscriber to the 'Lawful Stupid' school of paladinhood, but it seems bizarre that all paladins should have an Intelligence of at least 13 (especially seeing that the archetypal paladin uses Int as the dump stat). But more to the point, should paladinhood really restrict people based on Intelligence? I think not.
Bravery, honesty, honour and the like are the qualities of paladinhood. Genius, study and logic are not strictly. The Improved Disarm requirement phases out a lot of the most dutiful people who could qualify for paladinhood, merely because they are too stupid. This is an intellectual elitism that seems out of place for paladinhood.
Leadership is another odd choice. The questing paladin may have a squire, but is this paladin really (at high level) strictly going to have an army of retainers? I don't think that they should. Not all paladins of legend (e.g. Knights of the Round Table) were served by cohorts of followers, and the ones in DnD should not have this requirement either.
Feat selection is necessary for a prestige class, but the question is which ones? Perhaps Mounted Combat, perhaps Endurance, perhaps Weapon Focus (it is for the Templar), or Smooth Talk (FR) or even Skill Focus (Heal). Improved Disarm, which cuts out all paladins of average and lower intellect; and Leadership, which necessarily negates the 'questing' hero archetype, seem inappropriate.
reapersaurus
Explorer
very good points, AL.
And just because you took the blackguard and did a swap of abilities and spells doesn't mean that this PrC Paladin is very inspiring.
I think the Blackguard is a underpowered PrC, best suited for NPC's.
The fact that Smite is based only off of PrC level is a KILLER.
They are way too weak at doing what they SHOULD do best: smiting the opposite alignment.
One shot per day, adding a paltry amount to damage?
Compare that to Weapon Specialization - +2 damage, all the time.
And then the Lay on Hands based off of PrC level is way too weak also, compared to even one level of cleric.
If you work up a likely character to multi-class to Paladin at 7th, it might be a fighter4/clericX.
Thus thispaladin's combat effectiveness would be mainly due to his Fighter levels, and his healing, spellcasting, and turning would be mostly due to his cleric levels.
What would be left that is a paladin's specialty?
Detect evil at will?
I just never liked when a core class combo can be more effective than a PrC.
And just because you took the blackguard and did a swap of abilities and spells doesn't mean that this PrC Paladin is very inspiring.
I think the Blackguard is a underpowered PrC, best suited for NPC's.
The fact that Smite is based only off of PrC level is a KILLER.
They are way too weak at doing what they SHOULD do best: smiting the opposite alignment.
One shot per day, adding a paltry amount to damage?
Compare that to Weapon Specialization - +2 damage, all the time.
And then the Lay on Hands based off of PrC level is way too weak also, compared to even one level of cleric.
If you work up a likely character to multi-class to Paladin at 7th, it might be a fighter4/clericX.
Thus thispaladin's combat effectiveness would be mainly due to his Fighter levels, and his healing, spellcasting, and turning would be mostly due to his cleric levels.
What would be left that is a paladin's specialty?
Detect evil at will?
I just never liked when a core class combo can be more effective than a PrC.
Sonofapreacherman
Explorer
You noticed!
I assure you friend, no elitism is intended here, but I do intend for the paladin prestige class to be pursued only by those of a certain mental competence. An Intelligence attribute of 13 is certainly an above average standard, but by no means genius level. Paladins shouldn't be fools after all (which is not to say that all "dutiful" people are fools). But the mere possibly of a "foolish" paladin does not lend itself well to the respect that paladins must and should command as a community of questing men and women.
You do, however, put an idea into my head. A righteous peasant hero prestige class. Some abilities would crossover from the paladin, but not all, and there would be some new abilities too. Hmmm...
I will think on this further.
Not necessarily. That is the choice of individual paladins. But should the paladin need to summon an army in times of emergency or dire evil spreading across the land... they can.
Last edited:
Surely, foolishness is better represented by Wisdom? If you do not wish the paladin to be foolish, have a Wisdom prerequisite. And the fact that they should command authority is also a non-entity. Without getting political, many leaders have commanded authority by charisma without having decent intellects (again, there is no charisma prereq: this would be more appropriate). If you really wish for paladins to be inspiring, wise and the like, then impose Charisma and Wisdom prerequisites- Intelligence is technically incorrect for these traits. The current situation means that uninspiring and foolish characters can be paladins if they are clever enough.
Sonofapreacherman
Explorer
Al.
You are nitpicking the word foolish now. Foolish, stupid, idiotic, dim, dull. They all mean the same thing to me. A man or woman of low intellect would not lend itself to the respect that paladins are supposed to command.
As for Leadership, the feat has nothing to do with Intelligence. The only prerequisite for the Leadership feat is that characters must be 6th level or higher. So I don't know where you're going by pointing out that great charismatic leaders have not always been known for their intellect.
You tell me.
You are nitpicking the word foolish now. Foolish, stupid, idiotic, dim, dull. They all mean the same thing to me. A man or woman of low intellect would not lend itself to the respect that paladins are supposed to command.
As for Leadership, the feat has nothing to do with Intelligence. The only prerequisite for the Leadership feat is that characters must be 6th level or higher. So I don't know where you're going by pointing out that great charismatic leaders have not always been known for their intellect.
You tell me.
Last edited:
