How It Should Be: The Paladin

[cferejohn]

I can actually. I was running a game all the way back in 2nd Edition, and we were running the Baldur's Gate campaign on paper. After getting lost doing other things, we arrived in Nashkel, and no one knew what to do next, so we ended up in the tavern. The Paladin decided against drinking, but the fighters started buying drinks for information.

Well, OK, I probably *could* remember it, but there's nothing that stops the Paladin from buying drinks for other people. "3 beers bartender, and a water for myself."

Of course one of the points of alcohol in medieval times was that is was much safer to drink than water, but then again, he does get immunities, so that works out.

[Telonius]

I really like the flavor, quite a bit more than the current Paladin.

Regarding the "Honor" mantle... you might need to tighten up the wording there. Does simply being in a flanking position violate the vow? Can he attack a flanked enemy if he forgoes the -2 bonus? (And for that matter, can somebody forgo the -2 flanking bonus?) What if a rogue with Greater Invisibility is flanking the same enemy with him, but he doesn't realize it?

I'd suggest...
The Paladin holds himself to honorable standards of combat set down by his god. He loses all aspects of this mantle if, during the course of combat, he ever feints, trips, or knowingly attacks an enemy he flanks.

[Abardam]

Can an invisible creature flank?

[Telonius]

I would think so. Rogues with Greater Invisibility would get sneak attack dice if they hit something they're flanking.

Flanking rules:

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.
When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.

Threatened Squares

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.
Reach Weapons

Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.

And, Invisibility rules. Nothing in there about not threatening. So yes, I'd say that invisible creatures both threaten and provide flanking bonuses.

[Golthur]

First, I have to say, I love the flavour. Very well done.

I like the class, thought I think you need to add an atonement for each mantle. For instance if you take the abstinence mantle, and in a moment of weakness drink alchol, you could gain it back by fasting for a long period of time. Or you could regain the humility mantle back by living as a beggar for a month, something like that. I don't like the idea of perminate ability penalties for roleplaying mistakes.

I agree. I also agree with your assessment about the atonement spell. I always hated the magic "zap away your crime" thing. You want to atone with your god? Well, then do something that shows it!

I really like the flavor, quite a bit more than the current Paladin.

Regarding the "Honor" mantle... you might need to tighten up the wording there. Does simply being in a flanking position violate the vow? Can he attack a flanked enemy if he forgoes the -2 bonus? (And for that matter, can somebody forgo the -2 flanking bonus?) What if a rogue with Greater Invisibility is flanking the same enemy with him, but he doesn't realize it?

I recall somewhere in some other honour-based fighter class (CW, maybe?) that had a similar restriction that they were able to forgo the +2 from flanking and it's good.

[Abardam]

Ah, I see. I would think though that the flanking bonus comes from the difficulty of fighting two creatures, one on both sides of you.

Besides, the rogue would get the sneak attack dice anyway, right?

[Golthur]

Ah, I see. I would think though that the flanking bonus comes from the difficulty of fighting two creatures, one on both sides of you.

Besides, the rogue would get the sneak attack dice anyway, right?

In a normal flank, yes this would be the case, but the paladin would (honourably) not be taking advantage of the opponent's lapse in defenses.

Letting the rogue get sneak-attack dice would be touchy on the honour side, though.

[Abardam]

Uh, I was replying to Telonius.

[Kesnit]

Overall, I like it. (I love Paladins.) Just a few comments, though...

Should the Paladin’s mount die, it immediately disappears, leaving behind any equipment it was carrying. The Paladin may not summon another mount for thirty days or until he gains a Paladin level, whichever comes first, even if the mount is somehow returned from the dead. During this thirty-day period, the Paladin takes a -1 penalty on attack and weapon damage rolls.

Does the Paladin still take the -1 if (s)he levels up in those 30 days?

Divine Transformation (Su): Through dedicated and exceptional service to your deity, you have gained their personal favor, which manifests as follows. At twentieth level, you gain the ability to sprout great, translucent and intangible wings at will. These grant you the ability to fly at a speed of 60 feet (good maneuverability). The wings may be white, feathered, flaming, shimmering or of any other traits that represent the nature of your deity. In addition, you gain damage reduction 10/silver and your type changes to Outsider (Native, Good). Sprouting wings is a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, but you cannot fly on the same turn in which you sprout them.

Unlike most posters, I like the wings. It's a good capstone for someone who dedicated their life to being good.

Conviction
The Paladin is certain of himself and his actions, so much so that his unswerving faith augments his martial prowess. The Paladin loses all aspects of this mantle if he ever questions his faith, attacks another member of his faith, or smites a non-evil (or non-chaotic, with the Justice mantle) creature.

Even if he smites them unknowingly? Unless the Paladin wants to take time in the middle of a battle to find out if the bandit leader is Neutral or Chaotic/Evil, he risks smiting wrongly a lot.

Diligence
The Paladin has sworn to examine his opponents and his surroundings thoroughly. He loses all aspects of this mantle if he does not attempt every legitimate action before giving up.

Who determines what is "every legitimate?" (I know the DM, but how does the PC know if they really have done everything possible?) This seems very much a judgement call, esp if the PC is inexperienced or just not thinking.

Grace
The Paladin has sworn to protect his allies, with his life should the need arise. He loses all aspects of this mantle if an ally of his falls in combat before the Paladin falls.

As others have brought up, what about Power Word Kill? Or if the party is attacked by a large number of monsters and the Paladin cannot physically reach a party member to defend them without leaving someone else at risk? Or cannot physically reach them at all, such as being grappled or held?

Honor
The Paladin holds himself to honorable standards of combat set down by his god. He loses all aspects of this mantle if he ever feints, trips, or gains the benefits of flanking in combat.

Can the party rogue still flank and get sneak attack dice?

Mercy
The Paladin has sworn an oath to never willingly harm non-evil creatures. He loses all aspects of this mantle if he ever knowingly kills a non-evil creature or performs a Coup de Grace attack.

The Paladin can deal non-lethal damage with any weapon without receiving a -4 penalty. In addition, whenever he deals non-lethal damage to a target, he deals +1d6 extra non-lethal damage for each three Paladin levels and can deal non-lethal damage with a Smite Evil attack.

Why deal non-lethal to a Smite Evil?

Piety
A Paladin must pray to his deity, and those with the Piety Mantle of Faith must pray exceptionally. He holds himself to a standard where he must pray at least five times per day, for at least an hour per prayer session. He loses all aspects of his mantle if he goes one day without praying five times, with at least one hour of time between periods of prayer.

The theme is great, but I don't know how well it would RP. The player could just say they did their prayers. Or if the DM insists the prayers be more than words, it causes a lot of downtime for the others.

Zeal
A Paladin must always accept an honorable challenge. He loses all aspects of this mantle if he ever does not accept an honorable challenge or if he smites a non-evil (or non-chaotic, with the Justice mantle) creature.

Is there an exception for suicidal challenges?

[Sampi]

Great idea, but I concur with Kesnit's criticisms. Also, I would like to see a Chastity mantle. It is, after all, a classical knight vow.

[Jibar]

edit: Now Honor on the other hand, I'd say is for npcs ONLY

See, I was dubious about Honor.
You lose it if you flank somebody? So that rogue sneaks up behinds your enemy, or a fighter accidently takes a five foot step back, and you lose it?
That needs a bit of rethinking.

[Fax Celestis]

Hmmm. Maybe give them the option to change of their codes of conduct after atoning, if that was the cause of their fall?

Maybe. Let me think about the mechanic.

I like. I _really_ like. It'd be interesting to see a level 2 Paladin who could turn undead as a level -1 cleric, though. Does that mean they get to rebuke until they hit level 4? You could just tack "This code of conduct has no effect until the Paladin reaches level 5", though, to clear up any possible misconception.

I think that's the only mechanical flaw I could see in the whole thing. I presume that repeat-requirements for some codes are intentional, since some virtues are just approximate to each other.

That's a good point. I'll add that addendum.

The mount should get wings too! That way, it can fight along side you, even in the air.

Yes. Yes it should.

Mistype?

Also, I like the mantles. But how would Grace work, say in a surprise round? Say an enemy wizard pops up all of a sudden and uses Power Word Kill on someone. The paladin still loses Grace and all his spells?

Error indeed. Stupid copy-paste. I'll add in a radius on Grace.

Is a Paladin obligated to take a mantle of faith every three levels or can he decide not to?

Also, just so I'm clear, when a paladin takes a new mantle, he immediately gets all of the powers for that mantle up to his level? So a paladin who takes abstinence at 19th level, say, would be immune to magical disease/poison and have the +2 bonus to mind-effecting spells?

He has to, and he receives all benefits he qualifies for.

From the wording, it seems to include potions.

That was the intention.

It's kind of like writing your own paladin's code. Nifty. I really like the idea.

As I was reading I was thinking that some of the Mantles are things you wouldn't want to take without the rest of the PCs' consent. ^^; But then... paladins are kind of like that already, and this gives loads of options. I really don't have any problem with some Mantles being easier to keep than others -- it makes sense that some paladins are going to be more zealous, and are going to get more awesome stuff for it.

You'd really have to have a DM you get along with though. Some of the Mantles' requirements strike me as being fluffy enough to potentially become disputed.

Paladins are supposed to be difficult people because of a strict and rigorous code of conduct.

I like the class, thought I think you need to add an atonement for each mantle. For instance if you take the abstinence mantle, and in a moment of weakness drink alchol, you could gain it back by fasting for a long period of time. Or you could regain the humility mantle back by living as a beggar for a month, something like that. I don't like the idea of perminate ability penalties for roleplaying mistakes.

I do believe I'll do that.

This could be expanded even further into Paladins with other alignments (or at least other Lawful alignments). Some of the things on here (like abstinence) aren't "good" per se, but are definitely Lawful. You could allow different mantles depending on the deity, somewhat like Cleric domains (except you get to keep picking them).

Yes, but that's a lot of work I don't want to do without help. ;)

So how does patience interact with a ring od sustenance?

//shrug. Patience works as normal; the Ring of Sustenance means you don't have to eat. Pretty simple.

My only beefs are that most combat oriented classes usually don't have 0 level spells. I think it doesn't suit their flavor.

I always thought that having to wait for spellcasting for four levels was dumb.

I recall somewhere in some other honour-based fighter class (CW, maybe?) that had a similar restriction that they were able to forgo the +2 from flanking and it's good.

Correct. You don't have to claim the +2 bonus from flanking.

Does the Paladin still take the -1 if (s)he levels up in those 30 days?

Yes.

Even if he smites them unknowingly? Unless the Paladin wants to take time in the middle of a battle to find out if the bandit leader is Neutral or Chaotic/Evil, he risks smiting wrongly a lot.

Yes.

Who determines what is "every legitimate?" (I know the DM, but how does the PC know if they really have done everything possible?) This seems very much a judgement call, esp if the PC is inexperienced or just not thinking.

Exactly.

As others have brought up, what about Power Word Kill? Or if the party is attacked by a large number of monsters and the Paladin cannot physically reach a party member to defend them without leaving someone else at risk? Or cannot physically reach them at all, such as being grappled or held?

A radius on Grace should help.

Can the party rogue still flank and get sneak attack dice?

As long as the Paladin doesn't get the +2, that's fine. But it may violate other parts of his code, like Peace.

Why deal non-lethal to a Smite Evil?

To take them back alive, of course.

The theme is great, but I don't know how well it would RP. The player could just say they did their prayers. Or if the DM insists the prayers be more than words, it causes a lot of downtime for the others.

The assumption is that someone would roleplay it, even if its as simple as the Paladin disappearing for five hours each day.

Is there an exception for suicidal challenges?

I would file that under "dishonorable".

[TheThan]

Oooh I like this, I think I'll yoink it if you don't mind...

*yoink*

[elliott20]

hmm... I like this paladin. It's got enough options that you can really deck this guy out to fix the precise paladin feel you want.

I'll be reading it more closely later on.

[Rierdrex]

Nice work, this is exactly what the paladin should have been. If you want help for the mantles for different deities and alignements, I'd be willing to help. If you're interested by my help, could you PM me so we can talk about it? Thanks, and nice work!

[Abd al-Azrad]

That's a really neat take on the Paladin. At first glance, the idea of giving the paladin both (a) specific, combat-related restrictions chosen by the player and (b) specific, linked, rewards for those restrictions really sits well with making the class run more smoothly, especially in a combat-heavy game. I'm impressed.

[Fax Celestis]

That's a really neat take on the Paladin. At first glance, the idea of giving the paladin both (a) specific, combat-related restrictions chosen by the player and (b) specific, linked, rewards for those restrictions really sits well with making the class run more smoothly, especially in a combat-heavy game. I'm impressed.

Abd! You've been missed! Welcome back!

In other news, thanks.

Anyone interested in helping me adapt this to paladins of differing alignments should PM me.

[Geneticist]

One thing that I've been thinking is that this would actually work fairly well, fluff-wise, with a Monk. You could disallow VoP and have Monks gain access to these. But as for the actual class, I like it, especially the wings at 20th and the 0 level spells. Very "divine avenger" kind of feel.

[blackout]

You forgot the Fanaticism Mantle. +17 attack bonus. :)

[endersdouble]

Pah. TL;DR--not in the usual 13-year-old-with-ADD-meaning; it's just that class is way too long, way too complicated, and because of that, not worth using or balancing. For a Paladin Done Right, see page 8 of Tome of Battle. If you want, impose a bit more of RP restrictions (I personally wouldn't bother) and give some sort of ability as a reward--I'd suggest good Ref/Will saves (Divine Graces gives way too much MAD.) There. You're done.

[TheOOB]

You discredit the class but you don't really explain your motive for doing so. The class isn't all that complex, certainly not more so then a monk or druid, and the crusader doesn't capture the flavor of the paladin much at all.

[averagejoe]

It isn't complicated at all. He basically just has a buncha extra special bonus feats. I mean, I guess you have to read some of them, and that might take a little while.

[Fizban]

Hm. I like it, except of wings. More flexibility is something paladin desperately needs. But wings just don't fit.

Wings always fit.

I'd be more concerened about it all happening at 20th, but then gradual flight abilities are just annoying, so it's probably better this way.

Also: holy crap Abd's back! (I actually noticed he was gone before this, points for me!)

[Marius]

I like it a LOT, very good take on the paladin.

[Fax Celestis]

I have begun the brainstorming process (with some outside help) for making this Paladin into a multiple alignment Paladin.

As of right now, it appears like the best course of action is to divide mantles into four groups: "Good Mantles", "Evil Mantles", "Lawful Mantles", and "Chaotic Mantles".

This would, of course, mean dividing the current Mantles between Good and Lawful.

[elliott20]

I always thought that dividing the mantles by the Ultima system of conduct to be a good one. But this is not a bad idea either.

In essence, you can just take the mantles you have, and create their diametric opposite, I guess.

But then you would have some very strange results like, "must attack first at ALL times" or some such, which might result in some pretty chaotic stupid characters.

I think the best course of action here would be to create mantles that emphasizes less on morals and more on power, control and efficiency.

[Deus Mortus]

I want to create an lawfull evil version of the paladin class, is it alright if I use this as a starting point?

[Fax Celestis]

I want to create an lawfull evil version of the paladin class, is it alright if I use this as a starting point?

You can, but do note that I'm currently working on making this Paladin into multi aligned (LG/CG/LE/CE).

[Deus Mortus]

I'm busy building up a gameworld where the paladin is a prc for a priest, so I'm going to change some things around anyway, I mostly like the mantle idear.

[Fax Celestis]

I'm busy building up a gameworld where the paladin is a prc for a priest, so I'm going to change some things around anyway, I mostly like the mantle idear.

Go right ahead then.