Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 5940195" data-attributes="member: 52073">Setting aside the issue of what a paladin should do for a second, I'd just like to point out that "Paladin shouldn't be just a theme because it's always been a class" isn't exactly a good argument.  In 1e, it essentially was a fighter theme or theme+background combo, since that's how sub-classes worked.Mechanically, a paladin was a fighter who gained detect evil, +2 to saves, disease immunity and curing, lay on hands, and a magic circle against evil at 1st level at the cost of having to be lawful good and have minimum stats of Str 12, Int 9, Wis 13, Con 9, and Cha 17, and gained cleric casting, turn undead, a mount, and dispel magic while wielding a holy sword in exchange for restricting henchman and wealth options and costing more XP.  Aside from that, he used the fighter tables, used fighter magic weapons, and was otherwise a fighter through and through.  Making those abilities two themes for the fighter to take, one support-y and one smite-y (or one theme with restrictions, though that isn't a 5e thing so far), would be very AD&D indeed.This isn't to say that I disagree with the arguments for making paladin a class or agree with arguments to make it a theme, just pointing out that the paladin "only" being a theme isn't without precedent and isn't a mark against the paladin.</blockquote>