Why is the Paladin not a PrC?

[danzibr]

And I'm aware that there's a PrC Paladin.

Anyways, I was thinking about this on the way home. So in D&D you start out as some basic class, like Fighter of Cleric, then later on in life you can specialize with prestige classes... or combine different classes, kind of. Like Mystic Theurge and whatnot.

When you look at what the Paladin does, they're pretty much a combo of Fighter and Cleric (well, kinda). They cast spells and turn, though not as well as a Cleric, and as far as fighting goes, they get the BAB but not the feats of a Fighter. They get some more stuff, notably a horse, but the basic idea is holy warrior.

A few other base classes are like this, like some introduced in Complete books.

I don't know if there's much of a point to what I wrote, just sayin' I believe the Paladin is better-suited as a PrC than a base class given the flavor/mechanics.

[DeltaEmil]

Legacy.

Paladins (and ranger) were classes you could play in the pre-3rd editions (although you needed to roll crazy-good).

In 3rd edition, you can play a paladin (and ranger) even if you roll suck-tastic stats. Unfortunately, they're barely playable even with really good stats, especially the multiple-ability score-dependent paladin, but let's not disgress.

Anyway, the answer is legacy. You could play a paladin in pre-3rd edition, therefore, you ought to be able to play a paladin in 3rd edition, 4th edition, 5th edition and so on, because that's how it has always been since over 30 years.

[danzibr]

Legacy.

Paladins (and ranger) were classes you could play in the pre-3rd editions (although you needed to roll crazy-good).

In 3rd edition, you can play a paladin (and ranger) even if you roll suck-tastic stats. Unfortunately, they're barely playable even with really good stats, especially the multiple-ability score-dependent paladin, but let's not disgress.

Anyway, the answer is legacy. You could play a paladin in pre-3rd edition, therefore, you ought to be able to play a paladin in 3rd edition, 4th edition, 5th edition and so on, because that's how it has always been since over 30 years.
Ahhhh, I never thought of this. Good point.

[Coidzor]

Unearthed Arcana (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040206a) PrCizes Paladins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigePaladin) just for that reason, I believe.

Though, if you really want, there's PrC combos that do the job even better.

[KillianHawkeye]

Legacy.

Paladins (and ranger) were classes you could play in the pre-3rd editions (although you needed to roll crazy-good).

In 3rd edition, you can play a paladin (and ranger) even if you roll suck-tastic stats. Unfortunately, they're barely playable even with really good stats, especially the multiple-ability score-dependent paladin, but let's not disgress.

Anyway, the answer is legacy. You could play a paladin in pre-3rd edition, therefore, you ought to be able to play a paladin in 3rd edition, 4th edition, 5th edition and so on, because that's how it has always been since over 30 years.

Yeah, this is basically the reason for most things in D&D which don't really make a lot of sense. Usually it's a case of "this thing worked really well or was really popular in an older edition of D&D, so we need to include it. Unfortunately, due to changes in the base mechanics of the game, this thing will either be much stronger or much weaker than before."

[deuxhero]

See also: 3.x Ogre mage.

[Leon]

In 3rd edition, you can play a paladin (and ranger) even if you roll suck-tastic stats. Unfortunately, they're barely playable even with really good stats, especially the multiple-ability score-dependent paladin, but let's not disgress.


Both are easily playable - they may be a harder thing to make optimal but that is a optional choice.

[Acanous]

which should really come with a warning.
"This class was made intentionally difficult to play. It is intended for experienced players who enjoy a challenge."

That should go on Paladin, Knight and Fighter for sure.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yeah, this is basically the reason for most things in D&D which don't really make a lot of sense. Usually it's a case of "this thing worked really well or was really popular in an older edition of D&D, so we need to include it. Unfortunately, due to changes in the base mechanics of the game, this thing will either be much stronger or much weaker than before."

It's like darts. They kept them from 2e, but nerfed them to uselessness because there was a pretty strong dart trick back in 2e.

[Coidzor]

Both are easily playable - they may be a harder thing to make optimal but that is a optional choice.

Yes, the problem is that, really, competency should be a baseline thing that one should have to opt out of, not an optional add-on that one has to opt-in on. :smalltongue:

[MukkTB]

There's nothing really wrong with having people with access to a minor amount of magic. Even though the classes are low tier I like having them around.

[chaotician375]

I've always liked the idea of a paladin, but it seems that the all around effectiveness of the class got lost in the flavor. Personally i prefer a multiclass fighter/cleric, you have more leeway in determining your alignment(although mine way still LG) and better spell progression.

[Psyren]

Unearthed Arcana (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040206a) PrCizes Paladins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigePaladin) just for that reason, I believe.


At least read the first sentence in the OP :smalltongue:


It's like darts. They kept them from 2e, but nerfed them to uselessness because there was a pretty strong dart trick back in 2e.

What trick is that?

[erikun]

What trick is that?
A 2e Fighter specializing in the dart had 6 attacks a round, after hitting 13th level. All bonuses applied to each attack. Getting up to 20 Strength, especially alongside +5 returning darts, would be an easy +13 damage per attack/+78 damage per round.

Given that the Tarrasque only has 300 HP, and that is considered to be a lot, dealing nearly 100 HP damage a round is pretty absurd.

[gallagher]

Complete Divine somehow, pardon the pun, divined your question and provided a solution

for your mounted, divine casting paladin, they have the hospitaler.
for your smiting style paladin, there is the pious templar. it even has its own spellcasting progression.

and for your ranger as a PRC, there is the holy liberator

[Coidzor]

At least read the first sentence in the OP :smalltongue:

Well, he might not have known about how the given reasons for the PrC existing lined up with his own.

That, and I swear that line wasn't in there to begin with.

[tyckspoon]

What trick is that?

Ranged weapons used to have a trait called Rate of Fire, which was how many times you could shoot them/how many you could throw in a single attack action. RoF for darts was.. 3, I think.

The special benefit of Fighters used to be their capacity to specialize in a weapon above and beyond what anybody else could do, gaining extra attacks with that particular weapon and significant hit/damage bonuses. I won't guarantee this is correct, but I think a 1st level Fighter, fully specialized, would have +3 hit/+6 damage with his particular weapon and be attacking at 3/2 attacks per turn (that is, he'd get 1 attack on the first turn, 2 on the second, and so on.)

So put them together and you have a character throwing 3 shots on his turn that do a minimum of 7 damage with pretty good accuracy.. in a system where your standard Orc has a single d8 as his hit dice, no modifiers.

[Mystify]

I never liked the idea of a prestige class that merged two base classes. You have to wait too long to get your character functioning, and even then you have to contend with your low levels being a random mash of abilities instead of a coherent advancement of your concept. Theurges are notorious for this, but gishes suffer similar problems.

[Coidzor]

You sure it's not just the implementation that you dislike then? :smalltongue:

[Mystify]

You sure it's not just the implementation that you dislike then? :smalltongue:

Its the nature of how prestige classes work in the system. If the system had a more functional multiclassing system, then a multiclassed cleric/fighter should be able to function as a paladin without any problems whatsoever. This is possible to acheive, just not with how 3.5 does it.

[sonofzeal]

Its the nature of how prestige classes work in the system. If the system had a more functional multiclassing system, then a multiclassed cleric/fighter should be able to function as a paladin without any problems whatsoever. This is possible to acheive, just not with how 3.5 does it.
It's quite possible.

In the D&D mmo people are, if anything, even more virulent about optimizing. A poorly-optimized character is a danger to the whole team, and high level or high-intensity questing requires that everyone be effective. And in this rather fierce environment, Fighter1/ClericX is considered a decent build, especially on a Dwarf since the difference between swinging a Mace and swinging a Waraxe actually gets pretty significant.

[Mystify]

It's quite possible.

In the D&D mmo people are, if anything, even more virulent about optimizing. A poorly-optimized character is a danger to the whole team, and high level or high-intensity questing requires that everyone be effective. And in this rather fierce environment, Fighter1/ClericX is considered a decent build, especially on a Dwarf since the difference between swinging a Mace and swinging a Waraxe actually gets pretty significant.
The greatest irony is that the cleric is a better fighter than the paladin.

[paddyfool]

I never liked the idea of a prestige class that merged two base classes. You have to wait too long to get your character functioning, and even then you have to contend with your low levels being a random mash of abilities instead of a coherent advancement of your concept. Theurges are notorious for this, but gishes suffer similar problems.

It's generally more coherent to have a prestige class that's like "this is a prestige class which is intended to bring some abilities from class X across to class Y", it's true.

Champion of Gwynnwhatsit being one example of this for a barbarian who wants a bit of holy warrior flavour.

[Greenish]

There's nothing really wrong with having people with access to a minor amount of magic.I don't think that's what anyone is objecting to.

[Infernalbargain]

The greatest irony is that the cleric is a better fighter than the paladin.

Things also work a lot differently in DDO than PnP. Things like Silent Image don't exist in DDO. The crunch is drastically changed with the addition of enhancements and a few rules changes (AMF doesn't shut down non-activating gear in DDO etc.). I'd much rather have a paladin for tank / dps in DDO than cleric.

[Mystify]

Things also work a lot differently in DDO than PnP. Things like Silent Image don't exist in DDO. The crunch is drastically changed with the addition of enhancements and a few rules changes (AMF doesn't shut down non-activating gear in DDO etc.). I'd much rather have a paladin for tank / dps in DDO than cleric.

Stil, my point stands:
If a simple multiclass works, you don't need a prestige class for it.
If a simple multiclass doesn't work well, then it messes up your low level progression and the prestige class has to make up for it.
In neither case is a prestige class a really good solution.

[sonofzeal]

The greatest irony is that the cleric is a better fighter than the paladin.
DDO does give Paladins a nice role though - they're the best "intimitank" in the game. Since DDO lets you use Intimidate to make enemies pay attention to you, a Paladin's high Charisma pays off yet again. They can turtle up, not even attack, but keep the enemy's attentions while everyone else does their job. It's considered one of the harder roles to pull off, but quite effective when it works.

[Ashtagon]

See also: 3.x Ogre mage.

3.x ogre mage is actually a different monster entirely. It's not an ogre with class levels, it's a translation of the Japanese mythos oni.

[sonofzeal]

3.x ogre mage is actually a different monster entirely. It's not an ogre with class levels, it's a translation of the Japanese mythos oni.
Er. Yes. And it has been since AD&D. That was kind of the point of the post.

[danzibr]

Unearthed Arcana (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040206a) PrCizes Paladins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigePaladin) just for that reason, I believe.

At least read the first sentence in the OP :smalltongue:
Haha, thanks. I thought the same thing as I read the above quote.

That, and I swear that line wasn't in there to begin with.
:/

[gkathellar]

Because the designers couldn't figure out whether they wanted archetypes to be established through base classes, multiclasses or prestige classes.

Really - if you understand classes to be collections of mechanics and "super-types" then classes like fighter and rogue make sense and classes like paladin and druid don't (notably, the Warcraft Tabletop RPG took this approach very strongly, and made druids, paladins, rangers and so forth into prestige classes). On the other hand, if you understand classes as archetypes, then the reverse applies.

I will say that paladin is a clear archetype unto itself, but it's a hard one to define.


That, and I swear that line wasn't in there to begin with.

Considering the first post hasn't been edited, I hope you didn't swear on anything important.

[deuxhero]

Er. Yes. And it has been since AD&D. That was kind of the point of the post.

And terrible because it tries to make sure it has every ability it had there.

[danzibr]

The greatest irony is that the cleric is a better fighter than the paladin.
I was actually going to say something along these lines in the OP, that it seems a Cleric is a bit too good of a fighter. I mean, if you want holy warrior, it seems Cleric alone does the job. No horse though.

[Steward]

Clerics are generally pretty good at most things though. Paladins, apart from the other reasons, aren't good enough to justify jumping through any prestige-class-requirement hoops. They're barely good enough to justify the alignment restriction and code of conduct, to be honest. Players are pretty much just getting flavor when they pick that class.

[hamishspence]

If you go back to 0th ed- the Rules Cyclopedia, and the Mentzer/Moldovay books it was a compilation of- the paladin back then was akin to a prestige class for fighters- since you could only become one from 9th level onward.

It was for Lawful travelling fighters, it had a Chaotic counterpart, the Avenger, and neutral travelling fighters, had the option of becoming knights, which, unlike the other two, didn't have the possibility of becoming able to cast divine spells.

[Leon]

I was actually going to say something along these lines in the OP, that it seems a Cleric is a bit too good of a fighter. I mean, if you want holy warrior, it seems Cleric alone does the job. No horse though.

It may do but then its just focusing on one aspect of a very solid support platform and squandering it to play at the melee combatant game. If in a solo or very small group environment then yes but with a bigger group its a gross waste of the class's abilities to focus like that unless there are others that can provide the support options that cleric is giving up.