[Paladin] Is it just me or...?

Is it just me or could the Paladin literally be folded into the Cleric with little or no changes? I mean Channel divinity is the same, Oaths are just like Deity Choice right down to domain spells and bonus features. The few features they do get are either so overpowered they shouldn't have them or can easily be folded into the Diety Choice.

Then they kind of just threw Warden in there with a nature connection which makes no sense. Suffice it to say this packet moves me even farther away from wanting to support 5E...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I've always felt that paladins in previous editions were a lot like fighter/clerics. In 5E, clerics are already like fighter/clerics. That leaves the paladin standing around awkwardly, looking for something unique to do.

So... warhorse, it is then.
Pretty much a Paladin is a Cleric with a different spell loadout and a mount.

Still think that Oathfinder has the best itteration of the Paladin. 
I've always felt that paladins in previous editions were a lot like fighter/clerics. In 5E, clerics are already like fighter/clerics. That leaves the paladin standing around awkwardly, looking for something unique to do.

So... warhorse, it is then.


Sad, but true. 

Again, I am struck by the lengths to which the designers are going to avoid even implying that 4e exists. If their goal really is to build a game for everyone (and not just make a desperate grab at dragging the Pathfinder crowd back to the brand), they need to stop doing that. 
So a cleric by any other name, but you get a ride you can brag to your fellow clergyman about, plus you can sense celestial, fiendish and undead creatures by going "Hmmmm" for 6 seconds.

Interesting...

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of splitting up the party, sticking appendages in the mouth of a leering green devil face, accepting a dinner invitation from bugbears, storming the feast hall of a hill giant steading, angering a dragon of any variety, or saying yes when the DM asks, "Are you really sure?"

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/13.jpg)

Is it just me or could the Paladin literally be folded into the Cleric with little or no changes? I mean Channel divinity is the same, Oaths are just like Deity Choice right down to domain spells and bonus features. The few features they do get are either so overpowered they shouldn't have them or can easily be folded into the Diety Choice.

Then they kind of just threw Warden in there with a nature connection which makes no sense. Suffice it to say this packet moves me even farther away from wanting to support 5E...



Bye. I've been looking through this forum for a couple of minutes and have already encountered three posts started by you to complain about this and that. This indicates to me that you have your mind set on not supporting 5E, which is fine, but what is not fine is that you seem to have a deep need to find flaws in the system to justify your decision and throw it all out there with a lot of hyperbole.

It's a playtest. In the few hours that this package has been out, how much playtesting have you done? 
Is it just me or could the Paladin literally be folded into the Cleric with little or no changes? I mean Channel divinity is the same, Oaths are just like Deity Choice right down to domain spells and bonus features. The few features they do get are either so overpowered they shouldn't have them or can easily be folded into the Diety Choice.

Then they kind of just threw Warden in there with a nature connection which makes no sense. Suffice it to say this packet moves me even farther away from wanting to support 5E...



Bye. I've been looking through this forum for a couple of minutes and have already encountered three posts started by you to complain about this and that. This indicates to me that you have your mind set on not supporting 5E, which is fine, but what is not fine is that you seem to have a deep need to find flaws in the system to justify your decision and throw it all out there with a lot of hyperbole.

It's a playtest. In the few hours that this package has been out, how much playtesting have you done? 



I'm sorry but when I see amateurish design mistakes, I'm not going to be silent and act like they don't exist. When they make a 1st level Rogue feature that is completely worthless until you hit level 3 or 7, I'm going to point it out. When I see that they basically remade the Cleric and gave it a horse I'm going to point it out, especially if they keep talking about putting the Warlord as a build of Fighter (which they failed to do in this packet). The Warlord has way more design space than the Paladin. If anything the Paladin should have been folded into the Cleric not the Warlord into the Fighter. Then there was the comments the developers made about Ki being equal to Maneuvers and Skill Tricks. Now they got rid of all that, but the Monks Ki is still not equal to the Fighter features and the Rogue features. Especially the Fighter features not being equal to Wizard cantrips. This shows the developers don't really know whats going on. Now if you want to prove me wrong please post facts and figures to show me where I made a mistake, otherwise step aside and let me show the developers where they are making mistakes so we don't end up with an unsellable game and instead get a game where everyone can play and have fun...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The Ranger and Paladins were always hybrids between the fighter and the cleric/druid. I think they are a good balance of sacrificing spell casting abilities to get fighter accuracy as well as 1d10 hit dice. 

If it was just that, then sure you could make a paladin diety and sweep it under the rug of "domains" for clerics.



However if you want all the cool extra abilities, that would be too strong for a cleric domain. Paladins have really iconic abilities that set them apart, though I think in future packets you will see more differentiation. It seems like they are borrowing from existing material with some of the new content rather than adding in exactly what they think the proper spells, abilities, etc that each class should have. It could be they are doing that on purpose because they want overlap so that players can easily create new characters and hit the ground running. 

I think its a bit hard to just look at the new packet and immediatley know whats right and wrong. At least play a session or two to confirm your suspicions. And as they said in the podcast, they care more about getting the iconic feel of the characters rather than making the rules balanced and logical, though it is hard to convince people to playtest things are are greatly unbalanced.

I was quite disappointed in the palaldin.  I was making notes to self on each packet as I read through.  Notes on paladin section read "that's it?"

For such a potent class they got a really measley treatment.  Oaths are a tremendously missed opportunity with way too little definition.  Someone missed the point of a Paladin big time, IMO. 

Didn't notice the clerical overlap factor at first read, but now you mention it, it jumps out like a biter.  Such a shame for such a potent class.



The paladin gets full (+5) Attack Bonus progression and full (5x) Deadly Strike progression. The cleric only gets half progression (+3/3x). This means that in the absence of high-powered buff spells, the paladin is a far more threatening melee combatant than a cleric with an Oath instead of a deity. This comes at the cost of weaker casting.

Until the splats resurrect CoDzilla, the paladin is a clearly distinct hybrid or divine-gish class, and certainly more than 'a cleric with a mount.'
I wouldn't mind just deleting Paladin
    I like paladins, but I don't think the 5th Editon one is on the mark, I think they need to go back to the drawing board a little, 4th editions paladin was cool so maybe start there, incorperate his ability to challenge a foe, and bolster his allies with his attacks.  Return the detect evil, and disease immunity, as well as the fear immunity from 3.5 and Pathfinder.  Pallies are great against Dragons cause they don't flee in terror.  
    Also can we just drop the effing horse.  It's not useful at all.  Usually you are running around in a crypt or a dungeon or something, that isn't mounted combat territory.  I know it's been there since 1st edition, but it's kinda worthless.  The devine bond option in Pathfinder that makes the Paladin's weapon a tool of her god is a much more useful class ability.  
Is it just me or could the Paladin literally be folded into the Cleric with little or no changes? I mean Channel divinity is the same, Oaths are just like Deity Choice right down to domain spells and bonus features. The few features they do get are either so overpowered they shouldn't have them or can easily be folded into the Diety Choice.

Then they kind of just threw Warden in there with a nature connection which makes no sense. Suffice it to say this packet moves me even farther away from wanting to support 5E...



Bye. I've been looking through this forum for a couple of minutes and have already encountered three posts started by you to complain about this and that. This indicates to me that you have your mind set on not supporting 5E, which is fine, but what is not fine is that you seem to have a deep need to find flaws in the system to justify your decision and throw it all out there with a lot of hyperbole.

It's a playtest. In the few hours that this package has been out, how much playtesting have you done? 



I'm sorry but when I see amateurish design mistakes, I'm not going to be silent and act like they don't exist. When they make a 1st level Rogue feature that is completely worthless until you hit level 3 or 7, I'm going to point it out. When I see that they basically remade the Cleric and gave it a horse I'm going to point it out, especially if they keep talking about putting the Warlord as a build of Fighter (which they failed to do in this packet). The Warlord has way more design space than the Paladin. If anything the Paladin should have been folded into the Cleric not the Warlord into the Fighter. Then there was the comments the developers made about Ki being equal to Maneuvers and Skill Tricks. Now they got rid of all that, but the Monks Ki is still not equal to the Fighter features and the Rogue features. Especially the Fighter features not being equal to Wizard cantrips. This shows the developers don't really know whats going on. Now if you want to prove me wrong please post facts and figures to show me where I made a mistake, otherwise step aside and let me show the developers where they are making mistakes so we don't end up with an unsellable game and instead get a game where everyone can play and have fun...




I think GlBraag has a point. I don't have any qualms with pointing out things that might be problematic but it seems that every other thread concerning Next is by you and it's very hostile in nature. The problem is that you present yourself as being rather full of it when you assume that professional game designers (who, by the way, are trying to scope out what people want in case you didn't see tht yet) are 'amateurs'. Be critical but be civil and don't assume that your opinion weighs any more than anyone elses on these boards. I hope you won't take this personally and lash out. I'd just like to see people give this edition a chance instead of waiting to see it fail.

Return the detect evil



Paladin was in a non-release playtest at last year's PAX.  It never made a wide-release playtest packet until now.  One of the reason for that, IMO, is that having a strictly coded Lawful Good character class is not useful.  It leads to all sort of arguments, rules-lawyering, and other meta-game behaviors that work against getting immersed in the character.

I know all of this because I played the Paladin, and specifically provided negative feedback against Detect Evil.  And from talking to people at the con, my general impression was that most other players agreed with me.  Or more specifically, no one that I spoke to disagreed with me.

I think that having a Lawful-only requirement is a step in the right direction.  I think the class has many things going for it, most of which are based on number rather than on ability text.  I agree that the spell list is extremely limited.  I agree that they have the potential to work on that, expand it, and make Paladins their own thing.  I also think that the constructive way to approach that is to actually make suggestions on what spells you think are iconic to Paladins, but not Clerics.
I will agree that paladin and ranger spells seem quite underwhelming. I'd like to see spells for those two classes that focused more on their warrior aspects.
Is it just me or could the Paladin literally be folded into the Cleric with little or no changes? I mean Channel divinity is the same, Oaths are just like Deity Choice right down to domain spells and bonus features. The few features they do get are either so overpowered they shouldn't have them or can easily be folded into the Diety Choice.

Then they kind of just threw Warden in there with a nature connection which makes no sense. Suffice it to say this packet moves me even farther away from wanting to support 5E...Smile


Uh, wat?
Did you not notice this:
The paladin gets full (+5) Attack Bonus progression and full (5x) Deadly Strike progression. The cleric only gets half progression (+3/3x). This means that in the absence of high-powered buff spells, the paladin is a far more threatening melee combatant than a cleric with an Oath instead of a deity. This comes at the cost of weaker casting.
Until the splats resurrect CoDzilla, the paladin is a clearly distinct hybrid or divine-gish class, and certainly more than 'a cleric with a mount.'


The Pally is THE Martial/Divine hybrid; a chosen warrior who is the beatstick of their God.
Had a neckbeard on /tg/ complaining on how weak Next Clerics were because they had such weak Martial bonus progression, and we kept trying to tell him that Clerics are now much squishier Divine Casters while PALADINS would probably be the Divine headspliters.

Oaths are a tremendously missed opportunity with way too little definition.


I do agree with this, a lot more could be done with Oaths, especially their "Channel Divinity" options.
Another /tg/ example, a large number of anon were upset that Warden appeared to be the Lawful Neutral option, since they wanted to play a Pally of "Da LAAAAAH!"
 
Of course looking at the packet, you can play Blackgaurd as Lawful Neutral, and if you switch out Rebuke Undead for a re-fluffed Nature's Wrath you get the perfect "Dreadknight."

Return the detect evil, and disease immunity, as well as the fear immunity from 3.5 and Pathfinder.  Pallies are great against Dragons cause they don't flee in terror.

  Uh... they still have Disease Immunity... they get it at Level 7... Fear Immunity was rolled into Aura of Courage, which you get at Level 4... Instead of Detect Evil, they have Divine Sense which locates nearby Celestial, Fiend, or Undead Creatures... This certainly makes sense since you can play Blackguard, and thus have an ability that's universally useful, but it does make one wonder if they shouldn't have access to a "Detect Alignment" spell or Channel as well...

    Also can we just drop the effing horse.  It's not useful at all.  Usually you are running around in a crypt or a dungeon or something, that isn't mounted combat territory.  I know it's been there since 1st edition, but it's kinda worthless.  The devine bond option in Pathfinder that makes the Paladin's weapon a tool of her god is a much more useful class ability. 


Eh, I dunno...

  With the Druid having "Wild Shape: Steed", plus two backgrounds including Horses in their starting gear, it makes one wonder if they're not planning on including more Mounted activities in Next... I mean, they are hoping to make Paladin's the "Knights in Armor" type of character.

I also wonder how "impractical" it actually is to bring your mount along...
All the Moon Druid combat Shapes are Large Beast after all.

Tell me, how would this "Divine Bond" mechanic work?
Is it just me or could the Paladin literally be folded into the Cleric with little or no changes? I mean Channel divinity is the same, Oaths are just like Deity Choice right down to domain spells and bonus features. The few features they do get are either so overpowered they shouldn't have them or can easily be folded into the Diety Choice.

Then they kind of just threw Warden in there with a nature connection which makes no sense. Suffice it to say this packet moves me even farther away from wanting to support 5E...



Bye. I've been looking through this forum for a couple of minutes and have already encountered three posts started by you to complain about this and that. This indicates to me that you have your mind set on not supporting 5E, which is fine, but what is not fine is that you seem to have a deep need to find flaws in the system to justify your decision and throw it all out there with a lot of hyperbole.

It's a playtest. In the few hours that this package has been out, how much playtesting have you done? 



I'm sorry but when I see amateurish design mistakes, I'm not going to be silent and act like they don't exist. When they make a 1st level Rogue feature that is completely worthless until you hit level 3 or 7, I'm going to point it out. When I see that they basically remade the Cleric and gave it a horse I'm going to point it out, especially if they keep talking about putting the Warlord as a build of Fighter (which they failed to do in this packet). The Warlord has way more design space than the Paladin. If anything the Paladin should have been folded into the Cleric not the Warlord into the Fighter. Then there was the comments the developers made about Ki being equal to Maneuvers and Skill Tricks. Now they got rid of all that, but the Monks Ki is still not equal to the Fighter features and the Rogue features. Especially the Fighter features not being equal to Wizard cantrips.



now you see lokiare that is why if I ever run into you at a con, I owe you one big kiss ;)

Return the detect evil



Paladin was in a non-release playtest at last year's PAX.  It never made a wide-release playtest packet until now.  One of the reason for that, IMO, is that having a strictly coded Lawful Good character class is not useful.  It leads to all sort of arguments, rules-lawyering, and other meta-game behaviors that work against getting immersed in the character.

I know all of this because I played the Paladin, and specifically provided negative feedback against Detect Evil.  And from talking to people at the con, my general impression was that most other players agreed with me.  Or more specifically, no one that I spoke to disagreed with me.

I think that having a Lawful-only requirement is a step in the right direction.  I think the class has many things going for it, most of which are based on number rather than on ability text.  I agree that the spell list is extremely limited.  I agree that they have the potential to work on that, expand it, and make Paladins their own thing.  I also think that the constructive way to approach that is to actually make suggestions on what spells you think are iconic to Paladins, but not Clerics.



I made a thread on this a few months back.


Detect Evil as it worked in past editions was problematic, especially in adventures wherin the identity of the villain was a problem (there were ways around it, certain spells and a ring of mind shielding, but those became contrived if used too often).  But there's a lot of rich]and unique flavor that could be used with it as well, such as a paladin entering a desecrated temle and being able to sense the lingering taint of evil.  I wholeheartedly support the way they are doing it now, where it only works on supernatural evil, such as undead and fiends.  The Lawful Evil human spy does not radiate evil, nor does the Chaotic Evil elf illusionist, but the vampire trying to fit in at the duke's ball has to take extra measures to hide his presence.


  With the Druid having "Wild Shape: Steed", plus two backgrounds including Horses in their starting gear, it makes one wonder if they're not planning on including more Mounted activities in Next... I mean, they are hoping to make Paladin's the "Knights in Armor" type of character.



Maybe wardens will get a druid as a mount at some point!  Wink

For what it's worth, OP has been making a lot of posts lately, and some of those (especially that rogue one) are arrogant and make assumptions that are missing important information. Whatever the case there, here I think he's right. Paladins are clerics with the numbers moved around.

As an action, divine sense seems way too situational.

Divine grace makes paladins kings of the saving throw, which is great.

The channel divinities are unique and interesting (except for Turn/Rebuke Undead) and uniquely different from the cleric. Dreadful aspect and nature's wrath are surprisingly interesting.

The spell list is just watered-down cleric.

The mounts are just dumb. They don't scale at ALL. They disrupt the action economy and wouldn't be appropriate in all (or even most) games.
The mounts are just dumb. They don't scale at ALL. They disrupt the action economy and wouldn't be appropriate in all (or even most) games.


Possibly the mount can be useful in any adventure.

These magical mounts are remarkably intelligent. Intelligence 10. Thus, the Paladin can communicate with them - completely - like any other normal character. A talking horse, whose neighing language the Paladin can learn. They are completely loyal, and are the same thing as running an extra character. They deserve a separate character sheet, or at least an essentialized “character card”.

The point is, even in tight places, the mount can go riderless and fight in combat like an extra character.


The mounts are just dumb. They don't scale at ALL. They disrupt the action economy and wouldn't be appropriate in all (or even most) games.


Possibly the mount can be useful in any adventure.

These magical mounts are remarkably intelligent. Intelligence 10. Thus, the Paladin can communicate with them - completely - like any other normal character. A talking horse, whose neighing language the Paladin can learn. They are completely loyal, and are the same thing as running an extra character. They deserve a separate character sheet, or at least an essentialized “character card”.

The point is, even in tight places, the mount can go riderlesss and fight in combat like an extra character.




Wow, I hadn't thought about it that way, but that's kind of awesome! ...and a bit strange if you consider that the two classes that traditionally get pets, the ranger and the druid, were both in this packet and didn't get pets, allegedly because they're planning to make companions an optional module. 

Still, I'm all for the paladin's special mount being less of an overland travel buff and more of an actual animal companion!
Whatever the case there, here I think he's right. Paladins are clerics with the numbers moved around.
...
The spell list is just watered-down cleric.


Uh, I don't know how it worked in 4e... but that's pretty much how it works in 3.x...
There you only got access to spells at Level 4, and only if you were getting bonus spells based on your Wisdom Score.

As an action, divine sense seems way too situational.


True enough, but the classic "Detect Evil" is a bit game breaking, plus Divine Sense has a use in Alignment-less games.
Would be nice to get a "Discern/Divine Alignment" spell though...

The mounts are just dumb. They don't scale at ALL. They disrupt the action economy and wouldn't be appropriate in all (or even most) games.


Well the only real issue is that they don't scale, because:
Possibly the mount can be useful in any adventure.
These magical mounts are remarkably intelligent. Intelligence 10. Thus, the Paladin can communicate with them - completely - like any other normal character. A talking horse, whose neighing language the Paladin can learn. They are completely loyal, and are the same thing as running an extra character. They deserve a separate character sheet, or at least an essentialized “character card”.
The point is, even in tight places, the mount can go riderlesss and fight in combat like an extra character.


They aren't just an average horse of course!

Sure, they're not going to match up with a Dire Shape Moon Cleric of the same level, but they are a pet with multiattack that you have a minor psychic connection with.

Wow, I hadn't thought about it that way, but that's kind of awesome! ...and a bit strange if you consider that the two classes that traditionally get pets, the ranger and the druid, were both in this packet and didn't get pets, allegedly because they're planning to make companions an optional module.
Still, I'm all for the paladin's special mount being less of an overland travel buff and more of an actual animal companion!


Well Druids at Level 9 get access to Spell Level 5, which includes Awaken, the spell that gives a Beast or Plant with an Intelligence Score of 2 or less a full 10, plus one launguge of the casters choosing.

So they can pretty much create their own talking horse if they so choose.

Rangers have the "Animal Friendship" Spell, but I wouldn't mind them getting an Animal Familiar that would tie into their Favored Enemy.
Like a Hawk that could make a Blinding Strike for Giant Killers.
Possibly the mount can be useful in any adventure.
These magical mounts are remarkably intelligent. Intelligence 10. Thus, the Paladin can communicate with them - completely - like any other normal character. A talking horse, whose neighing language the Paladin can learn. They are completely loyal, and are the same thing as running an extra character. They deserve a separate character sheet, or at least an essentialized “character card”.
The point is, even in tight places, the mount can go riderlesss and fight in combat like an extra character.


They aren't just an average horse of course!

Sure, they're not going to match up with a Dire Shape Moon Cleric of the same level, but they are a pet with multiattack that you have a minor psychic connection with.


Yeah. Moreover the Intelligence makes them truly useful.

If for some reason, you want the mount to walk backwards while guarding the rear of your traveling party, the mount can do it. It is capable of sophistic tactical behavior.

If you want the mount to run and grab a particular unattended Wizard scroll, it can.

It can stand on its hind legs to reach up a wall to pull a lever.

It can guard a door. 

It can try avoid traps.

If you want it to run ahead to scout a situation, it can come back and tell you what it saw.

The mount is a fullon character, capable of Intelligent actions.

It is like a Druid character while in a wildshape.
The mount is a fullon character, capable of Intelligent actions.


Well I don't know how much you'd actually be able to make use of that...
3.x made a point that your mount thinks differently then a Humanoid, so it's possible for it to misinterpret your commands.
Even this version makes a point that you can only "communicate simple concepts and ideas" through the link.
My Little Pony, the Class: Paladin in D&D Next

Henchmen and animal companions shouldn't be part of a core class. I would rather see it as an option. Having henchmen or NPC allies as a class ability opens up a whole can of worms that need a subsystem to elegantly handle. Otherwise, that player will get 2x as much play-time as all the other players. The whole fact that it has 10 Intelligence or is empathic is kind of irrelevant... it's still one player roleplaying with himself.

And anyway, I never said the 3E paladin was any good, either. Happy to see Detect Evil gone. But there's nothing in the current incarnation that makes me excited to play a Brony. Everything he does is done better by others. I'm not sure what unique concepts he brings to do the table besides Divine Smite and a pony stat-block that has no other rules and quickly becomes irrelevant at high levels.
My Little Pony, the Class: Paladin in D&D Next

Henchmen and animal companions shouldn't be part of a core class. I would rather see it as an option. Having henchmen or NPC allies as a class ability opens up a whole can of worms that need a subsystem to elegantly handle. Otherwise, that player will get 2x as much play-time as all the other players. The whole fact that it has 10 Intelligence or is empathic is kind of irrelevant... it's still one player roleplaying with himself.

And anyway, I never said the 3E paladin was any good, either. Happy to see Detect Evil gone. But there's nothing in the current incarnation that makes me excited to play a Brony. Everything he does is done better by others. I'm not sure what unique concepts he brings to do the table besides Divine Smite and a pony stat-block that has no other rules and quickly becomes irrelevant at high levels.


Dude, you get NPC Retainers in one of the core backgrounds...

Sure, they're non-combat NPC, but they're still NPCs tied directly to your character.

And the Pally is the Martial/Divine hybrid class, he's got Divine abilities that keep him healthy while he's still a decent headbasher.
Sure, the Ranger and him don't fight as well as THE Fighter and their particular class routes (Oaths and Favored Enemies) need work, but both get a few spells for their trouble.
I was a little underwhelmed with the Paladin this time around. It has been my favorite class since I started playing D&D and ususally I see improvements from each edtiion. This one, however, has sort of left me saying "meh". My biggest complaint is that two of their iconic features (Lay on Hands and Smite) draw from the same pool. I've never been a fan of 1/day gimmick but now the paladin is full of them. At 1st level he get 3 interesting things to do per day. That's it. He can smite OR lay on hands OR turn undead (assuming Cavalier) plus cast two spells. Now, the spellcasting I'm OK with (despite the tacked on feeling I get becuase it's just cleric spells) becuase they last for a while. He can cast Bless or Divine Favor and have it work for a whole battle. That's good. Smite, on the other hand, is a 1-shot "Pow" and then......fizzle.

I think making Smite a little less powerful (I like +1d10) but can use it more often in a battle. Same with Lay on Hands. It's very potent but, again, cast and fizzle.  I also see too much overlap between him and the Battle Cleric. Basically one traded for better martial skills while the other traded for a little more spellcasting. I guess that's fine but it makes the two play extreamly similiar and I find that pretty boring.   
Paladin Channel Divinities are pretty damn weak. Divine Smite doesn't scale at all, forever stuck at 3d10 (while the Cleric's analog gets a nice boost to 6d10 at Lv. 11). Lay on Hands is forever stuck at 15 points AND uses up your action; not only should it scale with level somehow, but its action should be akin to a swift casting.

And then, yes, there's the whole issue of the puny amount of CD uses per day. I don't like the whole X/day mechanic to begin with with these kind of abilities (it should really be on a short rest basis a la Expertise die), but I don't think it's fair for the Cleric to have both more spells AND more CD uses per day. The Paladin should definitely have more.
I can't comment on the mechanical aspects, as I have no opportunity to playtest. That said, I like the feel of the 5e paladin/warden/blackguard (incidentally the ranger and druid too). If they can work out the mechanical issues, this is a 5e plus for me. Which, considering my feelings on 5e, is a step in the right direction.

-Calestin Kethal
Okay, here's my opinion, but, a little fact. D&D Next is supposed to be bringing back some elements evocative of the older editions, such 1 & 2e. That's the fact. So here's my viewpoint, classes weren't created equal, and they were never meant to be. Reasoning for this? In the original editions, Dungeons and Dragons were truly role playing game. The entire concept of each class being on even footing so that everyone was just as powerful and some combinations were amazingly powerful (min-maxing), didn't really come around until 3.5 and 4e. So, by taking this step 'back', they're just giving more opportunities fro role playing. For example, wizards and fighters should seldom role play like carbon copies of each other, or any two classes for that matter. Oh, and while discussing fighters and wizards, from what I've seen, their power lies in the mechanics. If you were to think of the classes from the perspective of somebody whose never really played before, do you think that somebody who wears armor, takes hits and then hits things back with some weapon, or someone with few hit points, no armor and in need of resting constantly to replenish the few spells which are just a bit more powerful would be more enjoyable to play? For the sake of it, while talking about classes, I also just don't get why everyone is so against the warlord becoming an offshoot of the fighter. It's never going to be the exact same warlord from 4e, so if that's what you want, you can pretty much forget about it. Tying back to the paladin, it's a niche. A very specific niche which has been here since the early days of the game. The mounts are part of that, so if you don't want them, just don't include them in your game. For the complaints about being forced to be lawful, it's necessary. The paladins swear oaths, which, be they divine or not, require some amount of lawfulness. Especially because 'lawful' simply entails you follow some sort of code of conduct within which you see fine to act. So I just don't see any chaotic classes being the kind willing to swear an oath and follow any sort of specific rules regarding what is right in their minds for them to do. So yes, tying this all back to the beginning, classes aren't meant to be perfectly even in every situation. Not every character needs to have amazing combat abilities. Not every character needs to have super powerful abilities. The entire point of the game is to role play as a character that you like and have fun playing, so stop worrying about whether or not your fighter can somehow hit something with a sword and have the same result as a fireball from a wizard. If you like a fighter, play one, and if you want to min-max, just make a party of nothing but that class that is overpowered, I assure you if you do, you'll actually die very quickly.

-Nemeia 
So here's my viewpoint, classes weren't created equal, and they were never meant to be. Reasoning for this? In the original editions, Dungeons and Dragons were truly role playing game. The entire concept of each class being on even footing so that everyone was just as powerful and some combinations were amazingly powerful (min-maxing), didn't really come around until 3.5 and 4e. So, by taking this step 'back', they're just giving more opportunities for role playing.



For starters, this makes absolutely zero sense to me. How, exactly does this provide MORE roleplaying or at least more roleplaying than the previous 2.5 editions? 

For example, wizards and fighters should seldom role play like carbon copies of each other, or any two classes for that matter.



Agreed, which is why some of us have been arguing that the Paladin resembles the Cleric far too much in what they do/accomplish as well as using the same resources. Really as far as I'm concerned the Paladin is just a Battle Cleric that's traded 6th thru 9th level spells for a better attack progression and some other "meh" benefits. I won't know for 100% until I playtest it but from the looks of it a 1st level Cavalier with the Defender specialty will play practically the same as a Warbringer Cleric with the Defender ability.

 Oh, and while discussing fighters and wizards, from what I've seen, their power lies in the mechanics. If you were to think of the classes from the perspective of somebody whose never really played before, do you think that somebody who wears armor, takes hits and then hits things back with some weapon, or someone with few hit points, no armor and in need of resting constantly to replenish the few spells which are just a bit more powerful would be more enjoyable to play?



I have no idea and I don't think anyone who's played D&D before can truely answer the question. It depends on preference. I have friends who will ALWAYS make a Ranger/Scout/Sneaky character with the new rules because that's what he likes. My cousin will ALWAYS go for the dark-magic Warlock character first time around with a new editions. I always try out the Battle Cleric, Warbringer, Paladin my first time in a new edition. So the question is rather silly until we get feedback from people who've never actually played any D&D before (which still leaves TONS of room for those who've played Fantasy-based CRPGs).

For the sake of it, while talking about classes, I also just don't get why everyone is so against the warlord becoming an offshoot of the fighter. It's never going to be the exact same warlord from 4e, so if that's what you want, you can pretty much forget about it.



For me, it's the sad excuses of WHY it can't be it's own class.  They've already shown me, with the Paladin, that a class that hold 90% of a "CORE" class's mechanics can be it's own thing with just 1 or 2 different features. The paladin cast cleric spells, on the same scale (at least for a little while). They both use Channel Divinity. They both can wear Heavy Armor and wield Martial weapons. You give a cleric a spell that resembles the Paladin's steed (which would probably be better too) and "poof!" PALADIN! And I like paladins, but this isn't different enough. So why can't a Warlord be it's own class now? Oh yea, it's 4E and that's wrongbadfun.

 Tying back to the paladin, it's a niche. A very specific niche which has been here since the early days of the game. The mounts are part of that, so if you don't want them, just don't include them in your game. For the complaints about being forced to be lawful, it's necessary. The paladins swear oaths, which, be they divine or not, require some amount of lawfulness. Especially because 'lawful' simply entails you follow some sort of code of conduct within which you see fine to act. So I just don't see any chaotic classes being the kind willing to swear an oath and follow any sort of specific rules regarding what is right in their minds for them to do.



And I completely disagree. I had a Chaotic Neutral Hexblade/Cruader who's patron was the Goddess of unluck in the Forgotten Realms. He pledged to bring as much chaos and defied most rules because he didn't feel constraned by them. Yet he didn't kill women and children, childeren almost 100% of the time because it struck him as "wrong" somehow. So by that logic he had a personal code of not killing certain types of people. Does that mean he can't be Chaotic? Becuase he sure was in the game. As for the Paladin mount, I'm over my rage-fit about it. I dont really care but if they're going to make the mount a class feature, at least make it good. Make it summon as an action and make it do better stuff as you level. As for Alignment restrictions in general, they're bad and they cause needless trouble between Player and DM. Trouble that was completely avoided with 4E. I don't see a good reason to bring that back, like ever. But hey, it's the DMs world and restrictions or not they'll be in there if (s)he deems it so. 

So yes, tying this all back to the beginning, classes aren't meant to be perfectly even in every situation. Not every character needs to have amazing combat abilities. Not every character needs to have super powerful abilities. The entire point of the game is to role play as a character that you like and have fun playing, so stop worrying about whether or not your fighter can somehow hit something with a sword and have the same result as a fireball from a wizard. If you like a fighter, play one, and if you want to min-max, just make a party of nothing but that class that is overpowered, I assure you if you do, you'll actually die very quickly.

-Nemeia 



I've played with classes that were all overpowerd and your right, it didn't end well for me. Being a 15th level Fighter with a 16th level Sorcerer and a 15th level Cleric made me feel useless as they would dismantle EL 23 encounters by themselves. I think I went mad and threw myself at the biggest thing they hadn't killed yet and after a few rounds of me getting destoryed, I died and rolled up a Wizard/War Weaver/Archmage that was fun. Pretty much standard issue for non-spellcasters to die by insanity at about 15th level in pre-4E campaigns.

So yes, balance is a concern for some people and if that is a design goal then I'm happy. Besides, there are three and a half editions FILLED with horrid brokeness and unbalance. No need to travel back down that weary road again.  
The assumption that "less balance = more/better roleplay" is in my opinion completely unfounded and false. If the system is balanced or not does not make me play my character any different....as you say it's all about having fun and playing, the system van either enhance the ease of that by being fair and balanced or get in the way by not allowing everyone to take part because their chosen class just isn't good enough compared to everyone else.

But back to the paladin: The horse (or pony if you just want to demean it without solid arguments) is a huge boost in any campaign I run. I don't think it's any fun just sending my players underground in random tunnels. I like to use cities/wilderness and often use a time frame like "you have 3 days to complete this task or X bad stuff happens" so the less time spend traveling the better the boon for you. So just because you only do dungeon crawls doesn't mean its useless for everyone.
Also note that the horse comes with free armor! A full plate for humans cost 5000gc...AND you can get a new horse for free by spending one day, that's a lot of gold saving for a knight in shining armors pet budget. As a DM I would probably rule that the armor vanishes if the horse dies.

He has full martial damage progression on top of spells, a few divine abilities, best saves in the game, a few immunities, full weapon armor proffeciencies... Why are people moaning?

/edit just saw one reason for moaning: battle cleric is CoDzilla and already fill the role of paladin 100% according to some... Well delete the battle cleric... 
Hmm... I guess I made my point unclear, which I tend to do a lot, because I didn't mean an imbalance of power equals better role playing. What I was trying to get across more was that when somebody looks at a class and compares combat abilities to combat abilities or spellcasting to spellcasting, then things will look unbalanced. However, the paladin may just be a 'fighter-cleric' with a few gimmicks on paper, but when you aren't looking at stats, there's a large difference between the two. The paladin fills a much different role, more that of an honorable knight with a code of ethics than a cleric who fights with religious fervor. My point being that if you look at stats, maybe there's a fighter-cleric build that's more powerful than the paladin, but if you were in a meeting with the lord of a very important city, would they be more apt to recognize the paladin, or a cleric from some out of the way abbey that can wield a mace as somebody worth listening too. Obviously, my views aren't a one size fits all deal, they happen to work for me and my group of players and we have a lot of fun playing as such. If you don't agree with my opinions or find them unfounded or confusing though, that's understandable, because I feel the same way about some things others say, it all really comes down to style choices. Just sharing my opinions and experiences.

-Nemeia 
Hmm... I guess I made my point unclear, which I tend to do a lot, because I didn't mean an imbalance of power equals better role playing. What I was trying to get across more was that when somebody looks at a class and compares combat abilities to combat abilities or spellcasting to spellcasting, then things will look unbalanced. However, the paladin may just be a 'fighter-cleric' with a few gimmicks on paper, but when you aren't looking at stats, there's a large difference between the two. The paladin fills a much different role, more that of an honorable knight with a code of ethics than a cleric who fights with religious fervor. My point being that if you look at stats, maybe there's a fighter-cleric build that's more powerful than the paladin, but if you were in a meeting with the lord of a very important city, would they be more apt to recognize the paladin, or a cleric from some out of the way abbey that can wield a mace as somebody worth listening too. Obviously, my views aren't a one size fits all deal, they happen to work for me and my group of players and we have a lot of fun playing as such. If you don't agree with my opinions or find them unfounded or confusing though, that's understandable, because I feel the same way about some things others say, it all really comes down to style choices. Just sharing my opinions and experiences.

-Nemeia 



Yes, and for people that think this way, simply role play the battle Cleric as a Paladin. There see problem solved, now lets fold Paladin into cleric and be done with it...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The Paladin could have it's own unique identity with stuff that distance him from the cleric, but the designers haven't done that so far. A paladin should smite more, something akin to a Fighter's Expertise Die. I mean, just take examples of stuff from the Crusader for inspiration.
The Paladin could have it's own unique identity with stuff that distance him from the cleric, but the designers haven't done that so far. A paladin should smite more, something akin to a Fighter's Expertise Die. I mean, just take examples of stuff from the Crusader for inspiration.


Agree. After some discussion, they should probably separate Smite from the rest of Channel Divinity and make it its own short rest basis mechanic.

And the Smite needs to do more at high levels. Simply 3d10 extra damage is not gonna cut it. It needs to be able to do stuff like blind, stun and maybe eventually save or die.
As far as Smites damage is concerned, I think its ok when compared to what a Fighter can dish out. The paladin still gets deadly strike, which stacks with Smite (or im mistaken). The Fighter can still only spend 1 ED per turn (not including reactions) to do something and thus, is limited to 1d6 + normal attack. Where the fighter shines is in multiple encounters per day, something the paladin cant match and Im against that. By making a Paladins smite last longer, like Rage or Pathfinder's version, it gives more incentive for a player to use it. That or just make the damagr scale and have it be smaller in damagr but renewable.
True enough, but the classic "Detect Evil" is a bit game breaking, plus Divine Sense has a use in Alignment-less games.
Would be nice to get a "Discern/Divine Alignment" spell though...



Actually, in 3.x at least, depending on how you read the spell, it wasn't as 'game breaking' as we thought.  But the issue was the 'Evil Creature' entry in the chart.  What does that mean?  The more literal minded could take that as anything living with an Evil alignment that doesn't have it's own entry (like Outsider, Undead and Clerics.)  The less literal minded could take it to mean creatures that have the 'always evil' under their aligments in the Monster Manual, which is actualy quite a few.  Because Clerics, who are usually humanoid, have to be following an Evil Diety to show up in Detect Evil.  Which MAY imply that other humanoids may not show up, because they're not 'supernaturally evil'.

The spell was problematic because it could be read two diametrically opposed ways, and no one had the 'right' way.

A thread I did on Clerics and Battleclerics:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

In my thread I talk about how the Cleric is the class based around any kind of philosophy  their character concepts vary wildly and can be entirely unexpected. The Paladin is not as free-form as Cleric, they have their own archetype and rapport with a setting, which allows you to put your own spin on something already established. The Paladin should be the class for those certain players who want to have a meaningful role in the campaign world but maybe struggle with coming up with their own story; A player should be able to drop into a setting and already have a legacy, a reputation, a goal and a challenge for their character, and as far as preloaded fluff the Paladin IMO takes the cake.

The Paladin is the class with it's own (optional) character concept. 
Frankly.... I miss the old days when if you were a Paladin and you did something against your class, you're now a Fighter without any of the benefits of picking fighter originally. So much better and the class really made a lot more sense.

Now we have Wardens, which I can't even fathom. My impression of a Paladin is Lancelot, Galahad, Percival, and even Luke Skywalker. These are the knights who have upheld all of the virtues that make a fighter a Noble Paladin, and when Lancelot was disgraced, he didn't keep fighting and doing everything for right, he left and was never heard from again. Wardens strike me more as Robin Hood or William Wallace, who are great people and held their ideals for just reasons... but they aren't Paladins by any stretch of the imagination.

Robin was a thief. Even if you do it for the right reasons it's still against the law, and a Paladin worth this spurs would never stoop so low. William Wallace was one of the greatest figures of history and lead the Scottish people in revolt against England. Hoorah! Unfortunately, his tactics were brutal and his reason for beginning this campaign.. and quite possibly for continuing it, are revenge.

Paladins should be seen more by their Roleplay and not by their stats. It's one of the things that bugs me the most about the 3+ editions of the game, that these holy warriors are no longer what they once were. To be honest, none of the classes are. Bards were healers in the last campaign instead of controllers, Thieves were the highest damage dealers in the entire 4e series, Mages and Warriors... spot on. We should use 5e to really encompass ALL of the great aspects of the game and bring back the rules of the Paladin so that we can once again.

Also, Paladins and Clerics are similar in the same way that Sorcerers and Wizards are similar. Somewhat close in what they can do, but one is WAY more powerful and one is WAY more specialized. (glad I could clear that up for you) 
Sign In to post comments