What's a Paladin? Not a base class.

[Trickquestion]

I've always been bothered by the fact that players can start as a level one Paladin (or Blackguard, for that matter). To me, Paladinhood seems like something the PC should earn through roleplaying a Lawful Good character and making an arrangement with a favoring God. Do any of you feel the same way? If so, how have you changed up the rules to fit this? I'm playing 4e, so my plan was that if my players gain Paladin status, they are allowed to take an additional Paladin power/feat, along with the one from their base class.

[DeltaEmil]

In 4e, paladins aren't (solely) the paragons of lawful goodness anymore, but the chosen warriors of their religion or their deity, which is why you can have unaligned, good, evil or chaotic evil paladins (just like you can have lawful good, good, unaligned, evil or chaotic evil angels).

And since paladins haven't been the super-fighter-that-are-more-awesome-and-with-better-class-feature-than-regular-fighters since 3e (there, it can be argued that they're far worse than regular fighter folks), it's not like anybody has to feel more exalted when having paladin abilities.
Most paladin abilities in 4e will only be marginally useful to any non-defender class, and the other defender classes will also try to focus rather on their own class abilities than on the paladin ones, especially if the paladin powers/class features doesn't have a great stat synergy with the character's ability stat allocation.

Will the paladin multiclass feat be free, and will it lock the choice of taking another multiclass feat? Free feats are always nice, but they might still be not taken if they come with something negative (like having to change alignment, and getting your multiclass feat choice locked).

[ghost_warlock]

I've always felt that paladinhood is something inherent. It's not earned - they're marked by, and born a champion of, their respective deity (no matter their alignment).

[JHShadon]

What is a Paladin? A miserable little pile of oaths! But enough talk... Have at you!

[RochtheCrusher]

You could just as easily say, I think, that being a Wizard or a Cleric shouldn't come free. Both of those, and really all classes, require a good deal of study and devotion to become just barely proficient with the craft... I mean, at Lvl 1, you're a Fighter with 20 Strength? You go straight from pig farming to being in the 95th percentile of strong people ever without so much as lifting a weight?

The bottom line, though, is that if we stop assuming that those training montages took place before we start playing then we end up playing a very different game.

[VeliciaL]

Keep in mind that the introductory tier for fourth edition is called "Heroic Tier." You start the game as a Big #$@% Hero, and get bigger from there.

Also keep in mind that 4E /= 3.5. There is a lot more riding on your class choice than in earlier editions. "Base class" is a bit of a misnomer here; 3-3.5 had base classes to categorize them differently than prestige classes. 4E just has classes (and paragon paths, and epic destinies).

Frankly, it would feel kinda wrong for being a paladin to only reward you with a single encounter, daily, and utility power, which is what a paragon path would do.

That said, I kinda agree in general. If I were to make a 3.5 derivitave (and really, who hasn't tried this at some point), Paladin would be a prestige class.

It just doesn't fit the design and tone of 4E, IMHO.

[Gavran]

Agreed. There's nothing stopping you from having you players not play Paladins when you have them start at Heroic Tier, if it's important to your setting that Paladins are .. well Paragons rather than heroes, but PrC's aren't a thing in 4e. Applying them at all would be a considerable effort, and applying them solely to re-implement Paladins just feels wrong to me.

[NecroRebel]

The approach you're considering sounds almost like the old Quest for Glory series's take on paladins... Not a bad thing, but quite different from D&D's. There, any character who behaves in a sufficiently-"honorable" fashion can, starting at the end of the second game, become a Paladin, which gives a Fighter some magic, a Mage better martial ability, and I don't actually know what it gives a Thief because it's practically impossible for a Thief to become a Paladin. It also gave them a cool magic flaming sword.

You could rename the Paladin class as "crusader" or "templar" or something like that and keep it otherwise unchanged - a religious, divinely-empowered warrior who is charged with defending the faith and its ideals. Then, you could use "Paladin" as an in-game title and reward those who earn it with special equipment granted from the favoring church or god or with access to special feats.

[Christopher K.]

I think the approach you're considering is much what the Level 0 rules were supposed to inspire - the party has to build up to any class, be it a fighter, a paladin, a wizard, or other, and then Heroic Tier begins. I wouldn't recommend it without heavily considering what you want out of requiring a buildup to become a Paladin, but it could be what you're looking for with minimal homebrewing.

[johnbragg]

I've always been bothered by the fact that players can start as a level one Paladin (or Blackguard, for that matter). To me, Paladinhood seems like something the PC should earn through roleplaying a Lawful Good character and making an arrangement with a favoring God. Do any of you feel the same way? If so, how have you changed up the rules to fit this? I'm playing 4e, so my plan was that if my players gain Paladin status, they are allowed to take an additional Paladin power/feat, along with the one from their base class.

Yes. But my reasons why go against so much of what 4E is about.

Under 3.X, it would have made all the sense in the world for Paladin to be a prestige class. The stereotypical Paladin abilities could be ported to a cleric easily, to an arcane caster with some effort.

But 4E doesn't do prestige classes, and I don't think Paladin is the only one that you'd look at at Level 1 and say, THAT's a starting character?

[Dimers]

I see nothing wrong with designing a paragon path and/or epic destiny with the restrictions "Lawful Good only" and "must be a chosen champion of a deity". You could either pre-set its powers to be paladin-like or allow the players to pick from the paladin list. You can create special traits for levels 11, 16, 21, 24 and 30 that fit your idea of what a paladin should be, or you can take suggestions from the players. If you want to make paladinhood attractive, give strong benefits (and if you want it to be attractive to many character classes, make those benefits stat-independent).

Want still more options your players can take? Design multiclass feats that give them abilities and access to powers you think paladins should have, again with the restrictions of "god's champion" and "Lawful Good".

Paragon paths and epic destinies are definitely not PrCs, but between homebrew multiclass feats, PPs and EDs, there's plenty of room to create this more specific concept. I think it'd be fun to see the differences between a fighter paladin, a cleric paladin, an avenger paladin and a wizard paladin ... which you could do, with flexible enough design.

[Blackfang108]

I've always been bothered by the fact that players can start as a level one Paladin (or Blackguard, for that matter). To me, Paladinhood seems like something the PC should earn through roleplaying a Lawful Good character and making an arrangement with a favoring God. Do any of you feel the same way?

I'm not sure how this is a 4e specific complaint?

[tcrudisi]

I'm not sure how this is a 4e specific complaint?

It's a 4e specific complaint because that's what he's currently playing. If he was currently playing 3.5, it would be a 3.5 specific complaint.

He's simply wanting feedback/advise on how to make the Paladin more "special" in regards to having to roleplay your way into it rather than starting off as level 1.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think the approach you're considering is much what the Level 0 rules were supposed to inspire - the party has to build up to any class, be it a fighter, a paladin, a wizard, or other, and then Heroic Tier begins. I wouldn't recommend it without heavily considering what you want out of requiring a buildup to become a Paladin, but it could be what you're looking for with minimal homebrewing.
I agree with this, especially because the paladin isn't the only class that suffers from this. You could say the same about the wizard who has supposedly studied arcane mysteries for years, or the druid who's been building up ties with nature their entire life.

But yes--Level 1 4th Edition characters are definitely a cut above normals. If you have a character class, you're special in the world.

[Scow2]

I agree with this, especially because the paladin isn't the only class that suffers from this. You could say the same about the wizard who has supposedly studied arcane mysteries for years, or the druid who's been building up ties with nature their entire life.

But yes--Level 1 4th Edition characters are definitely a cut above normals. If you have a character class, you're special in the world.Well, a wizard can study magic for years alone in a study to become level 1. A fighter can come fresh out as Best in His Class at Boot Camp/Fighter College, or have a small adventure in his past where he realized he was of heroic material. But level 1 is just the start of a hero's journey, which isn't fully-realized until level 10 - just as someone who reaches level 21 starts to ascend to whatever Epic Destiny they have laid out, but doesn't fulfill it until level 30.

A Quest For Glory-style paladin, on the other hand, is a hero among heroes. Not only have they saved multiple somewhere's days, but have been tested, and faced threats most would never dare to. It's kinda underwhelming to be treated as that kind of Paladin/hero when you're fighting Goblins and the like at level 1.

You'd want to make it a Paragon Path with lots of feat support and a special sword to get the feel of a QFG paladin.

[theMycon]

I agre with you in spirit: Paladin shouldn't describe a pile of abilities per level. It should be more of a title or a template, saying "you've proven that not only do you do the right thing, when you see the option and it's just as safe & profitable as doing the wrong thing; you instinctively know the right thing, and you'll do it all the time, simply because it's the right thing to do."
Unfortunately, in 4e, I think the only way to represent this is divine boons (see "Alternative rewards") and bending the rules to make the more interesting.

It's kind of a running gag at our table that NPCs assume that the bard is a paladin who isn't very good at melee (and occasionally the DM forgets that's not actually true), and when the actual paladin corrects them they assume he's lying.

[BlckDv]

I think we have a semantics issue here. The "Paladin" in 4e is a warrior powered by his faith who often seeks to champion the virtues of his god, which may have jack all to do with valor and honor. I've seen exactly one Lawful Good Paladin in 4e (Bahamut), three or four Good, and about a dozen Unaligned ones, as well as one PC and several NPC Evil ones.

A Paladin of Sehanine sure as heck better not be about being a forthright champion of valor and chilvary, that would go right against the virtues of their faith. Not to mention a Paladin of Bane acting with restraint and mercy?

Now, if your issue is that to you the word Paladin should be reserved for a specific Knight-like Chivalry driven type of Holy Warrior, fix it! 4e is all about the reflavor. Rename the base class "Devout Warrior" and make a PP for Paladin restricted to LG Devout Warriors with RP prereqs.

But the class listed as Paladin in the PHB is definitely a Base Class, and not well suited to trying to bolt onto another class as extra mechanics.

[Leewei]

Back in AD&D, paladins were especially gifted fighters, who got a huge slew of benefits due to divine favor and adhering to a special code of honor.

The problem is, it didn't work very well.

The game balance mechanic -- which also made it into 3.x -- was something that had a huge potential to cause party conflict. It was also a lightningrod for DM douchebaggery. Worst of all, it was tedious -- every paladin had the same hobbled morality, and so tended to act the same way.

Every player in 4E should have a similar opportunity to kick butts and have fun. Elevating paladins over fighters or other defenders would remove any incentive to play anything aside from a paladin.

Without the special perks from being a paladin, the code of honor and all the headaches that go with it are senseless.

The solution here is to make and play the character that you want. Some of them could give a rip about honor. Others might place their honor above all else -- but may be utterly without sympathy for the helpless. In any case, paladin players don't have DM code enforcement hanging over their head, and their teammates now don't generally have to contend with arbitrary Lawful Stickinthemud teammates.

Good riddance to the old paladin!