The (quintessential) paladin prestige class

[Lily Inverse]

Actually, I think I see Al's point. Let me put it in this example:

You, as a warrior, have been offered the chance to serve your diety directly. This will require some specialized training abd following a strict code of conduct. However, your diety is not offering you more capability to do his will than you could get training on your own. In fact, he's offering less. Even if you are a paladin in heart and soul, you wouldn't become one in fact because it would actually hamper your ability to follow your calling.

In a way, if you make your Paladins a PrC, you should probably offer a bit more than the standard Paladin class does to compensate. Tying level-dependent abilities to character level would be a good start.

 

[apsuman]

Wow! Please don't be insulted by this question apsuman, but did you just make that ability up? I'm genuinely impressed by your level of detail. I would only change the name to "Honorable Combat" and give it more of a conceptual paladin *feel*.

Yeah, I pretty much just rough drafted what you read there.

Later it occured to me to add that if the paladin disengages his chosen opponent then the ability ends.

g!

 

[apsuman]

Back on point, I find Leadership troublesome to implement. Making a player take it would only make it worse, IMHO.

Also, let me reinforce that since this PrC "lost" levels compared to the PHB Paladin, that increasing the power of those abilities probably would not hurt.

I.E., a PHB Pally gets to turn as a cleric at his level -2. Well, by the time you qualify for this class (level 7 and then gain 3 levels, then finally at char level 10 you can turn skeletons. Giving turn undead at level 1 with the ability to turn undead as a cleric of the same level as the paladin, would not break things (imho) and actually make it an ability that might get used at some point.


g!

 

[Jerrid Al-Kundo]

Except that idea completely overlooks the fact that the character already has 7 or more levels of other Class Abilities. For instance, a Fighter-turned-Paladin is already capable of destroying these undead rather than making them flee, while a Cleric-turned-Paladin is certainly already a better Undead Turner.

I see no reason to boost the effect any more than I would for a 9th Level Fighter that decides to become a Cleric at 10th. Perhaps giving Turn at 1st Level without any reduction, but then the possibility of front loading becomes a concern. Allowing Clerics to add their Paladin Level to turning efforts is also an idea.

As it is now, I see it most useful as a defensive ability, possibly to push back lesser undead in order to clear a path to the BBEG giving them orders.

 

[apsuman]

Oh, sure the front loading does become an issue.

But these abilities become marginalized by not gaining them until level 7, or 10.

For example, Turn Undead. Turning as a level 1 cleric when you are level 10 seems like it would be used so infrequently that it is almost not worth having.

Same for lay on hands, heals 2 hp per paladin level. Well at level 10 you can heal 6 points. Now, take them where you can find them, but if you have on average 89 hp (FTR 7/Pal 3, 16 CON) that 6 points is not going to have the impact that those 6 hp has for a PHB level 3 paladin (27 hp).

Youcould probably lose the ability to turn, and not really take much from the class. Increasing the Lay on Hands to 3 ph per level would not (imho) mess up this class.

 

[stranger]

originally posted by Sonofapreacherman
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.

I can name at least one "foolish" Paladin: Percival.

In nearly all of the Grail stories, Percival is one of the Grail knights. In most of them, he is portrayed as an innocent, raised in the woods by his mother, and having no real worldly experience. He does not command respect from the other knights. In at least one (the Middle English Percyval of Galles), he is portrayed as an outright fool, who gains entry into the Roundtable by defeating a foe through sheer luck, though he cannot ride a proper war horse or use a proper lance. Even in Mallory, IIRC, he is treated shabbily.

But Percival gets the Grail. And Lancelot, for all his skill, ability, and worldy experience cannot. This leads me to the conclusion that even foolish people can be paladins. I would argue that a Paladin commands respect, if at all, through deeds and actions.

That's just my interpretation. Of course, YMMV.

-stranger

 

[animesuperman]

I think this need to make a prestige class still does not solve the issue at hand. You have a problem with roleplaying in your group, there is no need to make a prestige class to solve that. You need to work with your players to get them into their role.

My very first character was a paladin because I in fact wanted to play "Superman". A character who always went to uphold the highest ideals and work for the greater good, but not by letting the ends justify the means. being my first character I messed up on the code of ethics and I lost my paladinhood. It took me 4 months real time in which i couldnt level (in 2nd edition) working to get back my status. And from that point It set an example to what my job as a paladin was and how I needed to work towards it.

Your problem with paladins needs to be delt witha DM's approach. If your player does not roleplay that then he has to atone and until then he's less than a real fighter. Its a severe punishment that is justified in the rules of the game. And it will truly force your player to understand what it means to be a champion of a diety.

And if a player continues to be an idiot, allowing people to get tortured, not taking prisoners, not being chivalrous, take away his paladinhood permanently. Don't be afraid to set an example, and be strict the benefits of the class come with restrictions that need to be enforced.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I can promise you only a complete fool would stop progressing in Cleric to have these weak abilities. I am an 8th level Cleric with a 6 BAB. Do I want 2-3 5th level spells or a bunch of weak abilities for my next level? If you can't show me an ability that is comparable to a 5th level spell then you just aren't in the ball game.

If I am a Fighter and I want a bunch of weak defensive abilities I will take a level of Cleric. All I need is an 11 Wis to pull that off. If I have a 12 Wis I am better off taking 2-3 levels of Cleric than a few Paladin PrC levels; my healing abilities will be much better.


SoaPM,

I think your prereqs are completely wrong. You have written up what you think a Paladin should be, not what kind of character would become a paladin.

If you are so fond of Expertise and Improved Disarm, you should write up a list of Paladin Feats that they can choose from, say, every third level starting from 2nd, as a perk for the class.

Lay on Hands and Smite Evil just doesn't cut the mustard when multiclassed. And those are two of the better Paladin abilities.

 

[Epametheus]

That Honorable Combat ability that Apsumon came up with is cool.

Anyways..

My main problem with your Paladin prestige class is that all ya really did was take Blackguard and re-format it. Horribly uninspired, my man.

As has been pointed out, if the problem in your campaign is roleplaying-related, making Paladin a prestige class will not fix that.

Lastly, power matters. If your concept for the paladin is "do-gooders who get ground into dog-meat on a regular basis," then fine, that's your concept. Just don't expect people to actually play it.

 

[Al]

That said, I really don't understand all the fuss you're making about Intelligence. If a fighter starts out with 12 Intelligence at 1st level (a slightly above "average" score) they will do just fine. All that fighter has to do is raise their Intelligence to 13 at 4th level and choose Expertise as their 4th level bonus feat. They can still easily qualify to become a 1st level paladin a 7th level (the earliest) by choosing Improved Disarm as their 6th level bonus feat, and Leadership as their level-dependant feat (also at 6th level). Done.

Granted, but this does presume that you get the ideal stats. If you're going to be a paladin, you'll want decent Strength and Constitution (to bash the bad guys), and decent Wisdom and Charisma (to cast spells and use abilities). If you're demanded high Intelligence AS WELL, then something has to buckle- making the paladin less good in his primary roles. Further, since there is neither a Wis prereq. nor a Cha prereq., paladins can (conceivably) have a low score in these. It is hypocrisy to claim that 'Paladins need a high Int to inspire' yet allowing them to have 1 charisma. 18 Int and 1 Charisma is less inspiring than 12 Int and 20 Charisma, but the former qualifies and the latter doesn't.

You've already misunderstood. High Intelligence will not get you respect, but low Intelligence you get you laughed at pretty damn quick. Getting laughed at either translates into "a lack of respect" or being made into the town mascot. You choose.

Arguable. I cited numerous examples of great leaders with less-than-high Intelligence. You failed to deal with them. Low Intelligence is, granted, uninspiring, but low Wisdom and/or low Charisma will be even less so. To claim that leaders cannot have low (or even average- or even merely just above average) Int is, historically, bunkum.

You understand scarce little about role-playing if that is your take on it.

Please justify.

The hospitaler and paladin prestige classes are identical you say? I didn't set out to be deliberately offensive Al, but if I thought you were misinformed before, now I am convinced of it. A few abilities do make these prestige classes "identical". There are so many strong dissimilarities between the two that I wonder if you are either blind (I hope not for your sake) or selectively "choosing" not to see them.

Again, this is nonsense. The Hospitaller is a holy warrior dedicated to helping the needy and resolving disputes by diplomacy first and force of arms second. How does this differs from the proposed paladin class? Spells, turning undead, laying on hands- the Hospitaller practically *is* the paladin prestige class. If you want to go for a bit more evil-smiting, pick up Templar instead. The Paladin prestige class has no niche- that is why roleplayers would not take it: the 'concept' you are so keen on is already covered, and by prestige classes which are mechanically superior.