What is it about Paladins?

[TheCrowing1432]

I mean. I know they're bad.

A lot of people know they're bad. But they still invoke that.....heroic image that no other class does.

Even other classes that emulate them, like Crusader or Cleric.

It just doesnt have the same....Feel of a Paladin.

Paladin is the one class that makes me feel like a hero, even if I am playing a good aligned other class.

Am I the only one who thinks like this?

[BWR]

What do you mean bad? Sub-par mechanics? Then yes, the 3.0/3.5 paladin is rather sucky. The PF version is quite a bit better. Not that it's a big deal since you can always fluff whatever build you want almost any way you want, so any fighting class with a little divine extra can be a paladin.
But yeah, I have a big soft spot for them as their own class or prestige class (as they were in BECMI) and any paladin-y classes and fluffy stuff like the Knights of Solamnia.

[Seppo87]

You suffer of old-schooliness, a dangerous syndrome which makes it more difficult to separate crunch & fluff.

Possible solution:
-Put 2 Paladin Level in your build, then go Crusader
-Play a Prestige Class that is technically a Paladin, like Divine Crusader, or even the Prestige Paladin itself.

[OldTrees1]

What is it about Paladins? It is the hero that lives up to the higher standard and is defined by that calling. That is what makes Paladins such an appealing concept. That is what caused WotC to make a Paladin class. But it is not what made them mess up said class, that is all WotC's fault. :p However it is that cultural connection of name to concept mixed in with mechanical representation (the code mechanic exists even if WotC messed it up).

So seize upon that aspect,
separate it from the class so that you can port it from hero to hero,
tinker and fix the mechanic so that it is not messed up,
and let the heroes of yore hear your Oath!

[Necroticplague]

Where exactly does this "Feel" come from? I tend to not really get the stereotypical 'hero' image from a paladin, since I've seen more that were miko-type 'kill everything that pings detect evil, let the Gods sort them out'. The main part of the typical hero I feel is important is an unyielding willpower, an ability to keep going on despite incredible hardship against them. Because of this, I feel the crusader is actually a better paladin by dint of crunch and fluff matching better (a paladin can't just keep trucking as much because they lose power over time, eventually just becoming a fighter without feats and with better saves).

[BWR]

I've seen more that were miko-type 'kill everything that pings detect evil, let the Gods sort them out'. The main part of the typical hero I feel is important is an unyielding willpower, an ability to keep going on despite incredible hardship against them. Because of this, I feel the crusader is actually a better paladin by dint of crunch and fluff matching better (a paladin can't just keep trucking as much because they lose power over time, eventually just becoming a fighter without feats and with better saves).

Point 1. I never came across the 'paladin is evil and stupid' problem until I started frequenting these boards. No one I have played with or spoken to in person or on other boards over 23 years has ever misunderstood what the paladin was intended to be or screwed them over just because. I guess there really is a large set of gamers out there that has this incomprehensible problem considering the number of times paladin hate comes up here, but rest assured there are plenty of players who aren't ********s or ignorant.

Point 2. The base paladin has good saves (willpower being fabulous keeps you going), healing (more to keep you going), immunity to ability to remove potentially crippling status effects, spells (even more stuff to improve you and keep you going). Yes, it was a somewhat lackluster adaptation of earlier editions where the paladin could be a real powerhouse (for instance, BECMI paladins got fighter armor and THAC0 and limited cleric casting and capped at 6th level spells in a system where 7th level was the highest divine spell level) but making massively more powerful mechanics and saying it works better fluff-wise because it's more powerful is a bit of an odd position, imo.

[Killer Angel]

I mean. I know they're bad.

A lot of people know they're bad. But they still invoke that.....heroic image that no other class does.

Even other classes that emulate them, like Crusader or Cleric.


To be fair, also the crusader comes with a powerful, stereotyped, heroic image.

[Necroticplague]

Point 2. The base paladin has good saves (willpower being fabulous keeps you going), healing (more to keep you going), immunity to ability to remove potentially crippling status effects, spells (even more stuff to improve you and keep you going). Yes, it was a somewhat lackluster adaptation of earlier editions where the paladin could be a real powerhouse (for instance, BECMI paladins got fighter armor and THAC0 and limited cleric casting and capped at 6th level spells in a system where 7th level was the highest divine spell level) but making massively more powerful mechanics and saying it works better fluff-wise because it's more powerful is a bit of an odd position, imo.

Correction: immunity and ability to remove a crippling status effect (disease). Crusaders also get the healing, and they don't have to stop being warriors to doso, thanks to a whole bunch of strikes that let you punch someone and heal yourself (including recovery that the paladin can't do, like removing negative levels, ability drain, ability damage). As for the undying will, they get some more evocative forms through stances, which include such gems as "minor blows will simply bounce off of me due to my focus", "I'm ridiculously hard to move from this spot", and topped off with "As long as I have the fortitude, I can withstand any blow and stay standing". Meanwhile, spells actually stop the paladin from being able to keep on going, because they run out, while the crusader doesn't run out of maneuvers.

So no, I don't think the crusader's crunch is better because its more powerful, but because it actually represent an iron-willed holy warrior better. The divine warrior in my head does not go "sorry, I'm out of juice, so I'm pretty much done here.", which a paladin does. He goes "Stilll alive, can still fight". Then he punches an orc so hard that the fact he's lost a quart of blood doesn't bother him.

[Milo v3]

It's Protagonist the class, that's a huge draw to some character concepts.

[ericgrau]

Correction: immunity and ability to remove a crippling status effect (disease).
They also get a handful of the major ones on their spell list. Perhaps the most commonly used one, lesser restoration, is a 1st level spell for paladins.

Paladins seemed pretty strong mechanically and noble fluffed in some low op games I played. But then most classes came out strong in those groups, except bard, druid (yeup, yeup, absolutely yeup that's how it was) and rogue. I think their learning curve was tough for inexperienced players. So is monk but our monk player was very experienced and no one else played one. In another group nobody wants to play a paladin because they all think paladins are jerks. Which is odd because if everyone in the group believes that and not just some people disagreeing with others, why not simply play a paladin that isn't a jerk?

[goto124]

I think their learning curve was tough for inexperienced players.

Do you mean mechanically speaking?

The RP side of things (having to be seriously Lawful Good beyond anyone else) is pretty tough, but let's say the DM and player have agreed on a solution that handwaves the roleplay problems away (some might say what's the point of playing paladin, but that's besides my point).

Are the attacks, combat movements, heals and stuff difficult for newbies?

[ericgrau]

Do you mean mechanically speaking?
Yeah mechanically. Referring to those other 3 classes. I'm saying they were fine with understanding how to play paladins so paladins came out strong. "Let's start a new campaign at level 1 but this time nothing super powerful like paladins or wizards." Also I know internet people have smite context but please don't.

[endur]

Role-play a Paladin. :)

Assuming Tome of Battle isn't allowed in your campaign, then Paladin is a fine martial class. If Tome of Battle is allowed, of all the ToB martial classes are better than all of the PHB martial classes. If ToB is allowed, call your character a Paladin and role play him or her like a Paladin, but use ToB classes, feats, etc.

If your campaign is in single-digit levels, I wouldn't worry about the Tier's of classes. Those really only become an issue in the double-digit levels. i.e. all the people saying cleric makes a better paladin than a paladin are only correct at high levels and if the various splat books are being used. Under PHB only and in single digit levels, paladin is better.

Now if your issue is the rest of the party wants to play chaotic-stupid and you would like to play lawful good, there I can't help you much. Other than to say sometimes you can increase the humor by providing the straight line as the paladin.

[mvpmack]

PHB in single digit levels, cleric is still better than paladin. War for a weapon proficiency of choice (greatsword or lance), and some good low-level buffs to make up for the lack of bab. A paladin can't really afford even a +2 stat item comfortably at low levels, but a cleric's had +4 str for minutes/caster level since level 3. He has hours-long magic vestment, hours-long greater magic weapon. If he feats wild cohort (not SRD though) he can even ride a magic horsey like a paladin, and if he doesn't he can still just buy a heavy warhorse, hippogriff, giant eagle, or pegasus.

At every level, clerics beat paladins with just the three core books.

[skypse]

They are limited. They are supposed to be played following a moral code that is strict and should not variate at all (even if sometimes DMs let it a bit loose). There are times in your campaign that you just REALLY want to stick your sword into a murderer's face and drive it all the way down between his legs cutting him in half while shouting TAKE THAT YOU FILTHY @#$%@#!!! @#$%%# @#^%^ #@$%&&@ @#$%$%^%$!!! etc.. Well the thing is that a Paladin could do that, but if said murderer begs for mercy and surrenders himself, 99% a Paladin is not only obliged to bring the murderer to face the Law's justice, but also protect him until they get their.

Imho from a player standpoint, this is as irritating as having caught a thief stealing your 500 gold from your pocket and despite his -20, he manages to bluff you into believing that those money were his and you must have dropped your wallet somewhere. Or sometimes even worse than that.

[Kol Korran]

Some thoughts:
- The paladin's appeal is to me his dedication and devotion to do good. But this need not be a paladin. I don't play often, but my group say I play in a paladin-ish way whether I play a fighter, a rogue, a cleric and so on. It's mostly a matter of attitude I think, not the class itself. At least to me.

Note: I know some think that the paladin as a "stick in the mud"/ Miko type is quite common, but I have rarely encountered it. (Just two occasions) But I have played with relatively few people. The main idea was champion of GOOD. Law took second seat to that.

- I have recently started to play in PF, and they improved the paladin greatly in my opinion. It can handle itself quite well I think. One of my players played one, and he was a serious power house. Their Smite Evil ability is finally something quite serious, not the joke it is in 3.5. And their Lay on hands improved greatly as well, mainly their ability to use it on themselves as a swift action. This lets them easily keep on going. (And there is considerably more healing as well). I highly recommend the PF paladin as a class. It feels much closer to what an unrelenting champion of good was supposed to be like.

[endur]

PHB in single digit levels, cleric is still better than paladin. War for a weapon proficiency of choice (greatsword or lance), and some good low-level buffs to make up for the lack of bab. A paladin can't really afford even a +2 stat item comfortably at low levels, but a cleric's had +4 str for minutes/caster level since level 3. He has hours-long magic vestment, hours-long greater magic weapon. If he feats wild cohort (not SRD though) he can even ride a magic horsey like a paladin, and if he doesn't he can still just buy a heavy warhorse, hippogriff, giant eagle, or pegasus.

At every level, clerics beat paladins with just the three core books.

Let's eliminate the non-PHB stuff as that varies by GM.

So just going by PHB.

Cleric can't have greatsword or lance. None of the PHB war gods offer those weapons. Heireoneous has long sword. The rest of the war domain gods are evil.

Cleric has bulls strength, magic vestment, and gmw.
Levels 1-2: Advantage Paladin -- Cleric doesn't have any of those spells yet.
Level 3-4: bulls strength appears ... If the cleric can prep cast spells before combat, advantage cleric. If there isn't time, advantage paladin. if a party caster puts bulls strength on the paladin, advantage paladin.
Level 5+: gmw and magic vestment appear ... if the cleric prep casts these before combat (which happens often due to long duration), advantage cleric. if a party caster puts these on the paladin, advantage paladin.
Level 5+: Paladin special mount. Rarely gets used due to size, but when it does show up, it is almost always better than other mounts in the party (although druid companion is usually better).

The most important advantage of the Paladin however is simplicity. You don't have to pick as many spells. It is easier to focus on what you can do. People always seem to assume that wizards and clerics always know what spell to use in a particular situation. The reality is that picking the optimal spell is hard. It is much easier to just roll an attack and not worry about spell casting.

[Flickerdart]

Cleric can't have greatsword or lance.
They totally can - Martial Weapon Proficiency is just a feat away.

Even without it, Greatsword is no great loss. Longsword deals 2.5 damage less on average, which only matters between "creatures have so few HPs that every hit is overkill" and "damage bonuses eclipse weapon dice" which I'm not even sure is a real gap that exists.

[Madhava]

I wouldn't call Paladin's bad, necessarily.

Not unless DM rules that battle blessing can't be used with arcane spells, a la Sword of the Arcane Order. Also, devotion feats (I'm fond of law myself), & maybe a dash of martial study/martial stance, can all be rather helpful. And they've got some half-decent PrC's, & also ACF's, to replace that situationally-useless mount.

Sure, Paladins aren't Clerics. They probably won't ever DMM-persist divine power, and won't ever cast gate/call marut/word of genesis/whatever else that makes your DM cry. But as far as melee-centric classes go, I'd say they can pull their own weight well enough, assuming a measure of splatbook-freedom.

[sideswipe]

build something like a paladin, then when people ask what you are playing say "paladin" and just pretend you are a paladin, its a way of life really not a mechanic.

[Snails]

Yes, it is totally possible mechanically to play something other class or class combination as The Knight In Shining Armor. Yet many people, myself included, have a soft spot for the Paladin that is not lessened by other options.

I think this points to the strength of the D&D class system -- that the fluff and crunch of a character class combine to be greater than the sum of its parts.

[Troacctid]

I'd like Paladins better if they didn't have so many dead levels and could actually smite evil more than once or twice a day. As is, they're really disappointing. The Pathfinder version is okay, though.

[Flickerdart]

I wouldn't call Paladin's bad, necessarily.
Paladin's bad what?


Not unless DM rules that battle blessing can't be used with arcane spells, a la Sword of the Arcane Order.
DM doesn't have to rule anything - wizard spells, even cast by paladins, are not paladin spells and not subject to Battle Blessing. A DM could rule otherwise, but by the actual rules no SotAO spells are quickened.

[Tragak]

I'd like Paladins better if they didn't have so many dead levels and could actually smite evil more than once or twice a day. As is, they're really disappointing. The Pathfinder version is okay, though. Would you be interested in a house-rule that I've had success with?

Step 1) A Paladin can make critical hits against Evil enemies regardless of immunity to precision.

Step 2) When a Paladin scores a critical hit against an Evil enemy, s/he refreshes 1d3 Smite Evil attempts (up to the maximum of the normal daily number).

[Vhaidara]

but making massively more powerful mechanics and saying it works better fluff-wise because it's more powerful is a bit of an odd position, imo.

It is when the paladin is simply incompetent at doing what a paladin should do (kill/redeem the wicked and/or protect the innocent, in some balance). You can say you're a holy warrior all you like, but if you can't perform the actions to back to up, you're fluff will fall flat on its face every time you try to act.


Let's eliminate the non-PHB stuff as that varies by GM.

You seem to be implying the PHB stuff doesn't vary by GM. I ban classes and spells from it. Races to, if I want to get my players to think outside the box of "Humans"


Would you be interested in a house-rule that I've had success with?

Step 1) A Paladin can make critical hits against Evil enemies regardless of immunity to precision.

Step 2) When a Paladin scores a critical hit against an Evil enemy, s/he refreshes 1d3 Smite Evil attempts (up to the maximum of the normal daily number).

Not a bad idea, but it turns paladins into crit fishers, which doesn't favor sword and board (or particularly THF), which to me is the iconic paladin combat style.

The PF Paladin is okay, but I prefer Smite being a smite versus a mark (one big hit over a longer term buff).

If I'm working with 3.5, I use Crusader or a Warblade who trades Tiger Claw for Devoted Spirit.

If I'm in PF, Warpriest for first party only, or I'll use Warder with Golden Lion/Silver Crane for the leader type paladin and Warder with Silver Crane and Iron Tortoise for the Defender Paladin. I'm currently experimenting with using the PoW:E Playtest Zealot as a defender Paladin by combining Eternal Guardian and Sleeping Goddess. With Spheres of Power, I play a Mageknight or an Armorist with the War, Protection, and Fate spheres.

If I'm using full on homebrew, I prefer using either T.G. Oskar's Project Heretica (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?193554-Project-Heretica-not-just-a-Paladin-retooling) (More customizable) or Grod the Giant's Paladin Rework (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?221312-A-hero-is-a-man-too-stubborn-to-die-a-3-5-Paladin-fix-(PEACH)&p=12150015#post12150015) (more focused on tanking). Seriously, Grod's rework is the quintessential hero pally, down to charging over to an ally, knocking them into the next square, and taking the blow meant for them.

[Troacctid]

Would you be interested in a house-rule that I've had success with?

Step 1) A Paladin can make critical hits against Evil enemies regardless of immunity to precision.

Step 2) When a Paladin scores a critical hit against an Evil enemy, s/he refreshes 1d3 Smite Evil attempts (up to the maximum of the normal daily number).

My preferred houserule is to just change it from per day to per encounter. Then you can use it in every fight without having to hoard it, which is all I'm really looking for.

The Pathfinder method of having one use last the whole encounter is nice too.

[sideswipe]

My preferred houserule is to just change it from per day to per encounter. Then you can use it in every fight without having to hoard it, which is all I'm really looking for.

The Pathfinder method of having one use last the whole encounter is nice too.

i would honestly just say that paladins get the smite bonus as a flat bonus against said alignment. easy then.

and give them the full list of cleric spells up to 4th (on top of the paladin list) with spells in whichever appears first.

then they start to suck less at what they do. though the funny thing is, when you see a paladin in game you don't think "oh look a fighter with a couple of spells" you think "oh **** its a paladin!"

[Vhaidara]

then they start to suck less at what they do. though the funny thing is, when you see a paladin in game you don't think "oh look a fighter with a couple of spells" you think "oh **** its a paladin!"

Ye, I do. Because my characters tend to be morally gray and Paladin's take offense to that while Fighters are like "K". I hate having to clean up the body.

[sideswipe]

Ye, I do. Because my characters tend to be morally gray and Paladin's take offence to that while Fighters are like "K". I hate having to clean up the body.

my players hate it when i throw in paladins, the lower the tier of named NPC's the higher the optimisation (barring npc classes) so that paladin who is hunting the 6 man party makes then run a bit faster (even if they can take him easily) just in case he gets hold of 1....

[Madhava]

DM doesn't have to rule anything - wizard spells, even cast by paladins, are not paladin spells and not subject to Battle Blessing. A DM could rule otherwise, but by the actual rules no SotAO spells are quickened.

So, a spell might not a Paladin spell, notwithstanding that it was prepared in a Paladin spell slot, and then cast by a Paladin? I'm aware that the Sword of the Arcane Order feat text specifies these as 'Wizard spells'. But can we be certain they are not Wizard spells and Paladin spells, both?

Is a Paladin spell a Paladin spell by virtue of being on the Paladin spell list? If yes, then could a Cleric feat for battle blessing, in order to free-quicken divine favor & dispel magic?

Were I to guess Wizards' RAI, I admit I'd be leaning toward your take on it. Still, my gray area sense is tingling.

[Vhaidara]

Were I to guess Wizards' RAI, I admit I'd be leaning toward your take on it. Still, my gray area sense is tingling.

Really? Given the history Wizards has, I would be leaning towards "Wait, you're doing what? Did we write those? And you can take both of them? Really? Never knew that."

[Flickerdart]

So, a spell might not a Paladin spell, notwithstanding that it was prepared in a Paladin spell slot, and then cast by a Paladin? I'm aware that the Sword of the Arcane Order feat text specifies these as 'Wizard spells'. But can we be certain they are not Wizard spells and Paladin spells, both?
Nothing makes them paladin spells. They are wizard spells cast out of paladin slots. For what you want, the text of the feat would have to say "add wizard spells to your class list" like Arcane Disciple and many other feats do.


Is a Paladin spell a Paladin spell by virtue of being on the Paladin spell list? If yes, then could a Cleric feat for battle blessing, in order to free-quicken divine favor & dispel magic?
No. Clerics cast cleric spells drawn from the cleric spell list. This makes divine favor that they cast a cleric divine favor, in the same way that wizards cast heroism as a level 3 spell even though bards get it as a level 2 spell.