If a Paladin Doesn't Cast Spells, Does it Still Feel Like a Paladin?

[Ziegander]

For example, if Pathfinder's Paladin hadn't cast spells, would you have felt that it was no longer a Paladin, but something else resembling a Paladin? How intrinsic to the concept of the Paladin class to you is the fact that it casts spells?

[Rogue Shadows]

For example, if Pathfinder's Paladin hadn't cast spells, would you have felt that it was no longer a Paladin, but something else resembling a Paladin? How intrinsic to the concept of the Paladin class to you is the fact that it casts spells?

I think they could probably be ditched fairly easily while still "feeling" like a Paladin, personally. To me, Paladin is really in the LG + smite + auras + Code + lay on hands.

Really, if anything, I think that spellcasting is kind of too ubiquitous in D&D 3rd Edition.

And it took forever to get spells as a Paladin in Baldur's Gate, to the point where I barely used them anyway.

(Gate was my first contact with D&D and still informs much of my opinions on the game).

[Morph Bark]

Depends. Give me a Paladin with spells and a Paladin without spells and let me touch them, then I can tell you. :smallwink:

[jaybird]

Not particularly. Smite and Detect Evil are more iconic features.

[Benly]

For example, if Pathfinder's Paladin hadn't cast spells, would you have felt that it was no longer a Paladin, but something else resembling a Paladin? How intrinsic to the concept of the Paladin class to you is the fact that it casts spells?

To me, the paladin needs "holy" powers but they don't have to be spells. Flavorwise, I actually would somewhat prefer a paladin that doesn't get spellcasting but gets equally powerful unique powers, since spellcasting is kind of a flavorless "one-size-fits-all" mechanic on its own. Most substitutions I can think of that replace spellcasting tend to not measure up mechanically, but thematically I'd prefer one that did rather than spellcasting.

[Ajadea]

To me, there are three parts intrinsic to the concept of a paladin:
1) A paladin smites evil. If it doesn't smite evil, it needs to get out.
2) A paladin helps others. This means teamwork oriented abilities. Lay on Hands counts.
3) A paladin uses weapons before spells. If you want a spellcaster who slays evil, find yourself a cleric instead.

Everything else is optional. Special Mount, detect evil, heavy armor proficiency... all are features that lend themselves to a specific image/concept of a paladin, but not necessarily part of what it means to be a paladin.

[Scots Dragon]

Not particularly. Smite and Detect Evil are more iconic features.

Funny, that. The Paladin has in fact had detect evil since Supplement I: Greyhawk for OD&D all the way back in 1976, and a small selection of cleric spells since AD&D 1e. Smite evil was first introduced in 3rd edition.

[RebelRogue]

Funny, that. The Paladin has in fact had detect evil since Supplement I: Greyhawk for OD&D all the way back in 1976, and a small selection of cleric spells since AD&D 1e. Smite evil was first introduced in 3rd edition.
Indeed. As an old timer, I find the Smite Evil fitting, but it isn't necessarily a cornerstone of what the paladin is as a class feature. Sure paladins are supposed to smite the wicked, but you can do that with a sword anyway.

As for the spells, though, I know they've always been there, but they do feel less iconic in many ways - paladins are melee characters first and foremost. Sure, they can be quite flavorful, especially if RPed as a bit more than 'just casting a spell'. But trading away spells for an ACF wouldn't make the character less paladin-y, IMO.

[Ziegander]

But trading away spells for an ACF wouldn't make the character less paladin-y, IMO.

Well, I guess, what I'm getting at is, if the core rulebook offered a single Paladin class and it had no Alternate Class Features, then should that Paladin cast spells?

[Benly]

Oh, actually I forgot the biggest thing that defines paladins as paladins: some kind of code of conduct so that people can make endless newsgroup/forum threads about how all paladins are mindless idiots and/or situations that GMs can contrive in order to force paladins to fall. :smallsmile:

[Dr.Epic]

So long as they smite evil and do stuff like that I'd say they're still pretty paladin-ish (regardless of spells).

[Invader]

When I think of paladins I think of;
1. Their code of conduct
2. Lay on hands

so personally I think they'd still feel like paladins without their spells.

[Ernir]

There was a poll going on the homebrew forum not too long ago that sought to find out what exactly people want out of a Paladin fix. Anyone have a link?

Anyway, yeah, I think Paladins should cast spells. I like them being right between the Crusader and the Cleric when it comes to that.

[Steward]

Paladin spells are mediocre and stunted. I think that they should be boosted, but if they were taken away altogether all it would do is make Paladins weaker, but no, it wouldn't change the flavor for me.

[RebelRogue]

Which reminds me: am I the only one, who thinks giving pallies the Battle Blessing Feat for free might be a good idea? It's certainly not a power boost that skews balance in any serious way, as far as I can see. That would make the spells more practically useful (no wasting of precious attack actions). It's not a paladin fix, but it's an easy and logical power-up.

[Scots Dragon]

If you were to remove a paladin's lay-on hands, priest spells, turn undead, and ability to cure diseases, and then replace them with an ability to detect and dispel evil magic, I would still say that they're more than fitting as a paladin, like so...

http://images.wikia.com/forgottenrealms/images/3/3f/Keldorn.jpg

[FMArthur]

Spellcasting? Bah! A paladin's defining features are its durability and randomly granted Devoted Spirit maneuvers. :smalltongue:

[nedz]

The Paladins defining abilities are Melee, Det Evil, Lay on Hands, Turn Undead and the susceptibility to be turned by Evil Clerics.:smalltongue:

[Eldan]

Just looking at the fluff, I don't know how fitting spells are, anyway. I'd say they need more divine blessings they don't even really activate, like auras and more things like charisma to saves.

A god hovering over them protecting them. Their unbending conviction bending the planes. Which doesn't quite suggest the same mechanics as spells, to me.

[INoKnowNames]

I was under the assumption that a Paladin was more or less a Title; a Holy Warrior of the Church. And under that assumption, Spell Casting seems secondary... some type of Holy Special Ability needs to be usable, yes, but the Smite and Detect Evil and Lay on Hands actually cover that quite well.

It's too bad that everything in 3.5 is measured along the lines of Spells...

[Invader]

Which reminds me: am I the only one, who thinks giving pallies the Battle Blessing Feat for free might be a good idea? It's certainly not a power boost that skews balance in any serious way, as far as I can see. That would make the spells more practically useful (no wasting of precious attack actions). It's not a paladin fix, but it's an easy and logical power-up.

I think that sounds like a great idea. I think they could stand a few other buffs as well.

[ericgrau]

Playing a 10 wis spell-free paladin at the moment :smallbiggrin:. Got him a wand for a fluff spell but that was it.

I think the paladin's holiness and often his diety is the biggest thing, which is mostly roleplay. Some shiny divine abilities like smite, the mount and, yes, spells are important too to represent the link, but IMO you don't need every single one.

If you're thinking of making an alternate class feature, then I think replacing spells is fine as long as you substitute in something with divine fluff.

[Dragonus45]

Playing a 10 wis spell-free paladin at the moment :smallbiggrin:. Got him a wand for a fluff spell but that was it.

I think the paladin's holiness and often his diety is the biggest thing, which is mostly roleplay. Some shiny divine abilities like smite, the mount and, yes, spells are important too to represent the link, but IMO you don't need every single one.

If you're thinking of making an alternate class feature, then I think replacing spells is fine as long as you substitute in something with divine fluff.

I agree wholeheartedly, my favorite character i have ever played was a paladin was a 11 charisma and a ten wisdom. His most decining moment was demanding the party (level 4) ride down after and try to stop an evil cleric (level 7 or 8 we think) from demanding regular sacrifice of children from some near by villages of adorable young children. We won, the round after the cleric killed mu paladin. It was epic, it was heroic and not a single spell was required.

[Aegis013]

Spellcasting? Bah! A paladin's defining features are its durability and randomly granted Devoted Spirit maneuvers. :smalltongue:

This was my first thought too. Crusader makes a great paladin.

[JustPlayItLoud]

When I play a paladin in 3.5, I usually almost forget that I have spells. To me, it's not really a core mechanic to the paladin feel. Then again, I started on AD&D. Paladins (assuming you rolled the stats to actually PLAY one) didn't get spells until level 9, only got up to three spells per day of each level, only got up to 4th level spells, and your caster level was as a cleric eight levels lower that capped at ninth (when you're seventeenth) level. The spellcasting was lackluster, and if you made it to a high enough level to get it you were usually so much of a total bamf that you didn't need spells anyhow. And if you got your hands on a holy sword, you wouldn't have a long enough break between wrecking your enemies to get around to casting a spell.

[moritheil]

Depends. Give me a Paladin with spells and a Paladin without spells and let me touch them, then I can tell you. :smallwink:

This is the best answer.


Personally, I think post-ToB, the paladin itself doesn't feel like a paladin any more. All the Diamond Mind maneuvers make ToB characters better than the paladin at making important saves, which is the one thing that paladins are supposed to shine at. ToB chars can reliably hit the high 30s* on any saving throw at level 10 if they build for it, and never worry about rolling at 1. The paladin really can't compete with that.

So in short, spells don't have that much to do with iconic paladinhood to me.

(*10 from an item, 2 from a mw tool, 13 ranks, and a feat that lets you take 10 on concentration checks. Further shenanigans are possible but not necessary; while I've certainly seen consistent mid-40s at level 10, and that natural progression would become high 70s-80 around level 20, it's not like the DM is going to start throwing DC 80 save-or-dies at a pre-epic party.)

[Knaight]

Looking at the D&D style paladin, there are a few key features. I don't really care about the specifics of how they are handled, but they need to be there.
1) Paladins are good at killing evil things. Maybe they have Smite Evil. Maybe the sword they swing around counts as holy damage, and thus works really well against monstrous things. The D&D paladin is decent at this, the D&D Crusader is better (largely because they are good at killing things in general). However, the strategy game Battle for Wesnoth does this just as well, simply because their sword deals arcane damage instead of blade damage and as such is far better against the undead faction. That can be mimicked in 3.x via persistent holy damage.

2) Paladins are good at protecting people. The D&D paladin isn't really all that great at this, but it works decently. This can also be a matter of roleplaying in some systems - if anybody can jump in front of an attack aimed at somebody else, who chooses to is just as important as how injured they get. Bodyguards and paladins are the ones liable to choose to. Perhaps they are also better at it, or have some sort of talent with a weapon when it comes to blocking stuff aimed at somebody else, but choices can cover this. The Battle for Wesnoth paladin manages this simply because the games Zone of Control mechanic makes basically anybody good at shielding people, and the paladin is liable to survive doing this for longer than most. AoO locking mimics that in D&D, as do some feats.

3) Paladins are good people. This is almost entirely a matter of roleplaying.

4) Paladins fight up front and center. For whatever reason, somebody on a horse, with a bow, staying away from the center of the fight doesn't seem to work well. Similarly, someone slinging spells from ten miles away really doesn't work. There is an aspect of the knight in the D&D style paladin (largely because of it being a little bit faithful to the Song of Roland style paladin, which were knights), and the classic image is someone in mail with a sword, a lance, and sometimes a horse. All of these things can change, but the more one of these changes the less room there is for the others (if the sword and the lance are replaced with a mace or hammer, it's a minor change. If they are replaced with a dagger, it's significant. If they are replaced with a blow gun, it likely kills the feel right there. Similarly, if the mail is swapped out with plate, or scale, or something else fairly heavy it is minor. If it just happens to not be worn for some fights, because the character wasn't expecting them, the feel is enhanced. If they normally fight in a robe, the feel is changed. So on and so forth).

[Keneth]

Pathfinder's Warrior of the Holy Light replaces his spells with some decent abilities and doesn't miss out on that "paladin" feeling in the slightest. If anything, I've always thought that paladins have no business casting spells and should posses innate abilities instead (or martial maneuvers at best).

[crazyhedgewizrd]

I have always viewed that paladin is more of a title, at is attached to a knight who serves the church. By taking that, you can use any class you want and still call yourself a paladin.

The feeling of a paladin is in how it's roleplayed more than it's machanical features.

[imneuromancer]

The Castles and Crusades Paladin doesn't have spells. It has innate abilties like the 1st edition paladin.

I find it perfectly awesome.

[Craft (Cheese)]

You know, I've always felt (fluff-wise, at least) the Ardent is closer to what a Paladin is supposed to be than the Paladin itself: Believing so much in an ideal, that your desire to make it real unlocks hidden powers you never even knew you had.

[Psyren]

I say yes, so long as there is some magical or supernatural component to what they do (even if it isn't as specific as a spell.)

For instance, Hellreaver is indisputably a "paladin" but does not advance spellcasting at all. Yet it still has options with a heavily divine feel.

[Madwand99]

I had a character called "paladin" before, because the person calling him so didn't know he was only a Fighter 2. He rode a horse, wore full plate and carried a lance, was LG and honored Pelor, so how would they know any differently? I realized that PC was a paladin, even if I hadn't taken any levels in it.

Of course, after that I did end up taking 5 levels in Paladin. I didn't have any spellcasting and my charisma (and thus turn undead/saving throws/lay on hands) was terrible, but I was still a paladin, and no one would mistake me for anything else. If you ride a steed into battle, with shining armor and lance smiting evil foes (whether or not you actually Smite) in the name of a righteous god, who can call you anything but?

So: yes.

[Belril Duskwalk]

I had a character called "paladin" before, because the person calling him so didn't know he was only a Fighter 2. He rode a horse, wore full plate and carried a lance, was LG and honored Pelor, so how would they know any differently? I realized that PC was a paladin, even if I hadn't taken any levels in it.

Of course, after that I did end up taking 5 levels in Paladin. I didn't have any spellcasting and my charisma (and thus turn undead/saving throws/lay on hands) was terrible, but I was still a paladin, and no one would mistake me for anything else. If you ride a steed into battle, with shining armor and lance smiting evil foes (whether or not you actually Smite) in the name of a righteous god, who can call you anything but?

So: yes.

From a roleplaying perspective, and in the sense of what a paladin is I have to agree with this. In terms of what makes a paladin from a mechanical stand-point, I would still say spell-casting is something of an afterthought. Mechanically speaking, I think what makes a paladin is the list of 'granted powers' they have from their deity, pure holy fervor, etc. Detect Evil at-will, Lay on Hands, Turning Undead, Bonded Mounts, Aura of Good, that's what makes a paladin in terms of mechanics I think.