View Full Version : Paladin...the prestige class!

Idea Man
2007-10-06, 11:16 PM
Am I the only one who thinks paladins should be a prestige class? Probably, but let's dwell on this a moment. What good are the upper levels of paladin, except more magic, and more uses of the special abilities. Don't get me started on the horse mount. I had a player who was outclassed by his own steed (in 2nd ed.) until he was 8th level, and he had a potent, intelligent sword (ahhh, Dyvyr...that's another story).

Definitely a ten level prestige class. Requirements? Hmm... knowledge: religion 4 ranks, BAB+6, armor proficency: heavy, Special requirement: sponsorship from a religious organization or good (lawful good?) outsider.

Condense the spells granted, move remove disease to fourth level, and I think we're set. Well, that was easier than I thought. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, I know it's just a mirror image of blackguard, more or less, but, the blackguard is just a mirror of the paladin. I don't want a twenty level blackguard! :smalltongue:

Or is this even worth the time it took to post it? :smalleek:

2007-10-06, 11:17 PM

Unearthed Arcana already did this.

2007-10-06, 11:18 PM
Or is this even worth the time it took to post it? :smalleek:

Not really. They already have one (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigePaladin).

Edit: Gah! Ninja!

2007-10-06, 11:24 PM
Am I the only one who thinks paladins should be a prestige class?

Heck no. Not by a long shot. Good man.

2007-10-06, 11:28 PM
Unearthed Arcana tends to agree with you. Apparently, same goes for the Bard and Ranger, the other two classes with a lesser version of a spellcasting progression. Seems like a reasonable variant, could be good to add a little more flavour to a game, assuming everyone involved was cool with the idea of not being able to take those classes at low level.

2007-10-06, 11:36 PM
I've always thought that paladin should be a prestige class, first and foremost for flavor and gameplay reasons.

I have a very hard time, as DM, letting any player begin the game as a paladin, because I have no idea at the time whether it's going to work out, and if it doesn't, BAM, loss of class features. But only if I decide they've violated the code. I don't like being given the choice of either letting stuff slide that shouldn't or gimping a character.

Having a paladin be a prestige class allows: A. a chance for me to see how their character plays and whether they actually will be able to keep to the code as I envision it. B. still give all the previously gained class features if they don't seem paladinish after a few game sessions.

Lord Zentei
2007-10-06, 11:37 PM
Am I the only one who thinks paladins should be a prestige class?

Verily, thou art not alone.

And not just for the reasons you named, either: there are thematic issues to consider as well. The paladin works best for a specific style of play (epic good versus evil), where these forces are clear and well defined. Knights of the Round Table, that sort of thing. It is not good for casual play or for settings where moral ambiguity reigns. Thus having it as a core class is a bit awkward.

Idea Man
2007-10-06, 11:48 PM
Thank you JackMage666 and Reptilius. I don't have the Unearthed Arcana myself, so I was unaware. My bad for passing over that book, kinda. :smallredface:

It was cool to see how close I was to the UA list (thanks for the link). I considered adding to caster level, in the case of clerics, but I think paladins merit their own unique list. After all, with all the extras of the class, how could you even justify one every other level, and anything less is hardly worth it. :smallwink:

2007-10-07, 12:07 AM
Half Cleric progression? On a full BAB class, for a melee character? I'd take it. The class'd be inferior to Cleric, but almost every class is inferior to Cleric.

Anyway, as much as I wuv my Paladins, I agree that flavorwise, they should probably be a PrC of some kind.