What's the Paladin bring to the table?

[Kitirat]

Its a valid question in 3e, why play a paladin? Personally I would rather play a Fighter/Cleric in 3e who gets a lot more spells, more feats and maybe 2 less bab. Except you will probably find a prc with full bab and 1/2 cleric casting.

Agree totally. In 4th however the paladin is attempting to fill another role then the cleric. The cleric is a short term buffer and ally booster. The paladin is trying to protect everyone else. I think it has more merit in 4th ed (as would barbarian, shadowknight, etc.) i.e. any form of tank as a second form of tank (a guy who is empowered by his god or gods) who can hold peoples attention with his holy power while the cleric is fullifilling a different role and a multi-classed (via feat) fighter/cleirc is gaining DIFFERENT abilities/power than the paladin.

Bottom line: Paladin and clerics have DIFFERENT POWERS, it is no longer that the paladin is just a watered down cleric with a few extra hit points and a pop into existance horse.

 

[Vael]

I never really liked the paladin in 3.5. Too straitjacketed by alignment, and I despised their watered down spellcasting. I only ever used two levels in paladin/sorcerer gish builds. The 4e one, though, I want to play.

 

[Ktulu]

I think we're going to see the paladin as the "superman" of the party. He stands out in front, cape billowing, and tells the enemies to test their mettle on him. He will punish those who attack his allies, and will defend his friends to the end.

I'm excited to play one.

 

[DeusExMachina]

What it brings to the table is mostly a commonly known fantasy archetype. While close to a cleric/fighter combo in mechanics, it's that idea of being the noble defender that really keeps it in the game, I think...

 

[Spatula]

It wasn't too long after 3e was released that I ditched the paladin class from my games. It always struck me as the poster child for base classes that should be prestige classes. Really, what is a paladin besides a religious fighter with a strong moral code? He gets the fighter BAB, but no feats. He gets cleric spells and turn undead, but not as effective. Then, he gets some save bonuses and some pretty minor healing.

When 4e was announced I wondered whether paladin would be included. After I found out the cleric was getting updated, I thought maybe the paladin would end up being the warrior priest that the cleric currently is, and the cleric would be more appropriate to portraying agents of tricksters, sailors, and art patrons. Alas, I don't really have faith that this is the case, with all the emphasis or combat effectiveness, and still expect the cleric to be as good of a secondary skull-crusher as the warlord.

So, I'm once again left wondering what the paladin brings that a fighter/cleric doesn't. With 4e feat-based multi-classing, the paladin may be even less necessary than in 3e. Just play a fighter with some clerical feats and choose a "paladin" paragon path when the time comes.

Am I the only one who wonders this?

I know the play-testers are still under NDAs, but does anyone care to at least say, "Trust me, paladins aren't just fighter/clerics?" Otherwise, I'll find out in a month.

I'm generally with you in not seeing the need for a paladin base class, but it's a bit of tradition that most people seem to want. And it's not that big of a deal to me, despite the conceptual similarities between the class and the cleric (both being war priests with slightly different focuses).

That said, there are some notable game mechanics that you get with the paladin class that you would not get with a fighter/cleric. For one, the paladin gives you a benefit for having a good Charisma score - the smites that we've seen added Cha to damage and possibly to hit? as I recall. Another is that the 1st level paladin also has a hell of a lot more healing power than a fighter with the cleric initiate feat would have. So I'm thinking it's likely that the paladin (or other hybrid base classes like the swordmage) will simply be better than the multiclass option.

On the other hand, a fighter with the cleric feats will probably have access to some powerful prayers that a paladin would not get (like flamestrike, if it still exists). Clerics tend to be more "blasty" than paladins, who are generally only good at melee.

 

[Surgoshan]

Potato salad and non-alcoholic lager, just like he brings to the church's potluck.

 

[sunrisekid]

So I'm thinking it's likely that the paladin (or other hybrid base classes like the swordmage) will simply be better than the multiclass option.

I concur. I'm starting to feel that a defined base class is more interesting than a multiclass, if only from an RPG perspective if not a miniature gaming perspective. The paladin is more interesting than a fighter/cleric; the ranger is more interesting than a fighter/rogue; the druid is more interesting than a cleric/ranger.

(I'd like to qualify this by saying I've been playing since the Red Box and am deeply familiar with the split-class trope).

The whole notion of multiclassing is beginning to appears as a weak seeming, bolted-on mechanic. I obviously haven't seen it yet, but "swordmage" sounds more interesting, and more like an RPG class, than say the "fighter/magic-user".

I'm at a point now where I think I'd *rather* see more "base" classes in the game. Imagine if the options were present to encourage players to choose a base class that met their interests and then let them spend feats to acquire powers from other classes as the "multiclass" option, though specifically not actually pegging the new character as being "multiclassed".

For example... if somebody wants to play a ninja and really wants the pirate's peg-leg, then I'd have him/her spend a feat to acquire the "power" but still just call them a plain ol' ninja rather than a ninja/pirate. (or whatever the 4e mechanic is, I'm just approximating)

 

[I'm A Banana]

In 4e, classes are much more specific.

In 4e, a Paladin is overtly a crusader for a god, an angel in mortal form.

In 4e, a Cleric is overtly a champion of the deity, the mouthpiece and supporter of the faith.

In 4e, a Fighter is overtly a massively heroic melee reaver, who sweeps armies before him as a reaper claims grain.

A "cleric" isn't just anybody who worships a god. A "fighter" isn't just anybody who can swing a sword. You can't just put them together to make a paladin as "someone who worships a god and swings a sword." They're much too specific for that.

If, in 4e, you go with a Fighter sub-Cleric, or a Cleric sub-Fighter, you will be remarkably different from a Paladin: you will not be as thorough of a defender, or you will not be as talented as a healer/blaster.

4e has taken a step away from using classes like a toolkit. Classes are pre-constructed monoliths that you use as-is, or create anew from the ground up for your purposes. The Paladin's purpose isn't just to synthesize Fighter and Cleric, just as the Fighter's purpose isn't "guy with a sword," and the Cleric's purpose isn't "guy who worships a god."

Hope that helps wrap your mind around it a bit.

 

[Victim]

Other healing powers we've seen use the target's healing surges. The paladin's Lay on Hands uses his healing surges. Depending on how much a beating the party takes, the ability to shift the cost of healing around might be a huge advantage. For example, a dwarf fighter might be using Second Wind as a minor action in most fights, plus out of combat healing. The ability to heal the fighter without further burning her surges would very useful.

 

[mudbunny]

I think we're going to see the paladin as the "superman" of the party. He stands out in front, cape billowing, and tells the enemies to test their mettle on him. He will punish those who attack his allies, and will defend his friends to the end.

I'm excited to play one.

One of the devs said that the fighter and paladin mugged the Knight (PHB II) and split his stuff.

I am betting that the fighter got the stuff that make it harder for enemies to get by him, whereas the paladin got the stuff that encourage people to attack him.