Community

2. A paladin can see and smite evil.

A paladin knows when something supernaturally adverse to the deity or calling he or she champions is nearby. For instance, although a good paladin cannot unerringly zero in on a specific threat merely by walking past a structure infested with evil, the paladin knows something is wrong. Regardless of a given creature’s actual nature, a paladin can judge it unworthy and smite it with divine power that energizes his or her sword blow. 

I'll start with the smiting. I'm relieved that it appears it's going to work against anyone, not just a certain alignment. The smiting needs to happen pretty often, I'd imagine. 3e's few times per day certainly didn't cut it. The ToB Crusader and the 4e Paladin smites were handled as part of their encounter power suite, which would be my preference (or whatever 5e's equivalent to an encounter recharge would be). They should smite early and often, and as they go up in levels those smites need to do nice things like daze, blind, stun, and if there's going to be some form of save-or-die, it should have that.

As for the detection ... if it's just a straight-up alignment-based mechanic, you've lost me. On the other hand, if it's more the detection of certain types of enemies that would be associated with the force antithetical to the Paladin's deity or cause, without explicitly stating an alignment, then it's got potential. And in any case, such ability really should not be taken into account when balancing the class for combat effectiveness.

Which brings us to ...

3. A paladin is a fearless and selfless warrior.

The paladin is a warrior, nearly as skilled as a fighter and typically armed with heavy armor and a sword, and utterly without fear. When a paladin fights, it is not only to impose his or her code on the unworthy and slay threats to his or her divine calling, but also to protect allies. More so than the fighter, a paladin who champions a good deity or moral alignment is willing (and able) to sacrifice his or her own safety to ensure the safety of his or her companions. To this end, a paladin aspires to find a blessed sword of unequaled power: a holy avenger.

I'll start with what I don't like here, or at least have concerns about. One obvious thing: I hope that Paladins aren't shoe-horned into using a sword. Another thing that gives me pause is the emphasis on the holy avenger. I REALLY hope that the Paladin is not balanced around the assumption that it will eventually get one. Anything like auras, strong party protections, effectiveness against hostile magic, etc., need to be part of the class itself. If the holy avenger enhances those aspects appreciably, that's fine, but a Paladin who never "finds" his holy avenger should never feel like a substandard character.

Now on to what I DO like. Namely, the emphasis that the Paladin is a warrior who is nearly as skilled as a Fighter. I like that the Paladin could return to more of a martial focus that was rather lacking in the 3e and 4e renditions of the class. Of course, what remains to be seen is the execution of being nearly as skilled as the Fighter. In my mind, this should mean that if a Fighter is able to perform a certain number of combat maneuvers per given time unit, and those combat maneuvers are at an X power level, then a Paladin of equal level should be able to perform all those combat maneuvers as well. Where the Fighter might pull ahead is having a +1 to hit, or a few extra points of damage, or a better chance to score criticals, and so forth. In a maneuver that attacks several foes, a Fighter might be able to tag an extra enemy compared to a Paladin of the same level. Something noticeable, but not so much of a difference that the Paladin feels like an overly gimped Fighter by default.

It appears that the defender aspect of the Paladin is also going to be played up somehow, though it remains to be seen how. Some sort of martyrdom effects, perhaps? Such effects should give some bonuses to the Paladin, too, when attacking in response (attack, damage, or whatever).

4. A paladin has divine abilities.

As a servant of a higher calling and deity, a paladin can call on a variety of divine abilities, including the ability to heal allies with a touch (lay on hands), turn undead, perhaps cast a limited number of divine spells, and have at least the option to call a mount. In each case, the paladin’s divine ability diverges from similar abilities a cleric might have, speaking to the paladin’s strengths. For example, when a paladin calls a mount, that mount might inspire the normal mounts of the paladin’s allies, granting them speed and endurance while they travel together. When a paladin turns undead, he or she can also turn demons, devils, and other unholy creatures. And when a paladin lays on hands, the healing might also relieve malign conditions and spent stamina.

The typical divine abilities that Paladins have gotten through most editions. What will be important, however, is how these things scale.

Lay on Hands needs to scale to be as effective, numbers-wise, as a healing spell an equal-level Cleric might cast on average (healing malign conditions and spent stamina are also good ideas in addition), and should definitely be able to be cast a few times per day, at least. And if LoH doesn't hit the heights, numbers-wise, of Cleric healing, it should at least be a lot more friendly with the Paladin's action economy. (4e actually did LoH right, for the most part, especially once it got support. 3e's LoH, on the other hand, was awful.) 

Mounts ... all I'll say here is that the Paladin's base ability in combat should NOT be balanced around having a mount. A Paladin with a mount should not be a worthless foot soldier. If this makes a mounted Paladin somewhat stronger than a normal character of equal level, so be it. Because it's not like such a power trip is going to be anything more than situational. I do like the idea of the mount giving bonuses to your allies' mounts, though.

Turn Undead and its variants here: Meh, I could take it or leave it. I'd rather see the Paladin's pure combat aspect emphasized.

Spells: Well, for better or worse, we're stuck with Vancian casting, and it looks as if the Paladin will partake as it did in every edition before 4e. Probably as a half-caster. Although the 4e Paladin's utility powers basically were the stand-ins for such spells. Which actually leads into how I think half-casters should be treated in 5e. Half-casters should, in fact, be able to cast high-level spells, but less of them per day than full casters. This way, a Paladin can do wonders casting that powerful, level-appropriate 9th-level spell at just the right time (just as a 4e Paladin with the right Lv. 22 utility — Shared Valor — can spur their THP-buffered allies into perfect positions before the fight even starts), but will have to be more judicious about his spell selection and casting than, say, a Cleric would.

 1. "The paladin is a champion of a divine calling". 

This sounded like too much clericness for me. Look at the picture of the paladin carefully. The paladin is a powerful warrior that has a very strict code of conduct. He fights for high ideals, for justice, for the greater good. He strives to right all the wrongs, he even sacrifices himself to do what he believes to be right. This should not have anything to do with deities at all. Yes, the paladin worships a deity most of the time, for sure. But all his deeds stem not from the alignment or portfolio of his deity, but from his conscience, from his heart. He does what he believes to be right, not what his deity supervises him to do. His deity is only a guide for him to support this heavy burden, this code of conduct.

I guess this sums up my view of the Paladin.

About Detect Evil:
I guess noone in this age will come up something like "I cast detect evil, rolled high and DM told me the guy in front of me is evil." Am I wrong? This can easily be a passive skill at the full control of the DM. Paladins simply have that 6th sense about evil and start to feel something is wrong when an evil source is around. They feel uneasy and nervous, and will expect something bad will happen and it will be from an evil source. DM decides the level of information to be given to the paladin in such situations. No dice rolls are needed for this ability. Higher level paladins can hone this ability to the point that they can tell at most whether the source of the evil is an object, an area or a being, but never the specific source.

In addition to sense evil, paladins can also discern the motives of intelligent beings easier than other classes. He is better to catch lies, hints of guilt in body language and such. That young man over there denied the accusations of stealing the noble lady's jewelery but the paladin feels the man is not telling the whole truth, he is hiding something whether about the actual accusations or about a totally different matter, he cannot tell. In game terms, paladin is clearly better in Sense Motives passive skill than any other class.

Weapon and armor proficiency: 
Paladins can use any weapon and wear any type of armor. The paladin is able to add +1 to his npc-interaction based skill checks (don't know what the names of skills will be in 5e) while he carries his weapon and armor. Yeah, it is funny this may lead players to don their armor and grab their swords just to persuade the tavern wench to bed, but yeah, the paladin is very capable of influencing people with his image.

Lay on Hands:
Should be the prime healing ability of the paladin. Slightly more powerful but used sparingly than the average cleric healing spell. Can also be used to cure nonmagical diseases (like flu, measles, syphilis...) with limited usage.

Smite:
The paladin may be able to use his divine powered attack on anybody. The effect can be doubled (or the attack considered as critical hit) against creatures embodied in evil (demons, devils, denizens of the lower planes, intelligent undead etc...)

Turn Undead:
No. Not paladin's business.

Fear Resistance:
Definitely. Nothing is tragicomic than a paladin that is hitting his heels to his butt in front of a dragon with the rest of the folk. The paladins should be highly resistant to fear.

Using Mount:
Paladins should have the ability to single out the best mounts from common stuff. They desire to ride the best mount available and they have an ability to use them to perfection. Paladins are very talented in mounted combat. They can also give bonuses and extra mobility to mounted comrades. Other mounts are also inspired from the paladin's mount, they get +2 bonus to will saves against fear effects.

Spells:
Paladins should have very limited number of divine spells, nearly all of which are focused on protection, inspiration, curing, removing ill effects. These should be very different from the cleric spells, because nearly all of them requires a weapon to perform. The paladin's divine ability simply channels from his heart and code, through his weapon, to his target.

May 21, 2012 -- 11:40AM, ARCThunder10 wrote:

I could talk everyone’s ear off about what I think the Paladin should be, but I have a different suggestion than just trying to argue class mechanics as they are. In order to speculate on the future of the Paladin we need to truly understand the Paladin. Some people here get what the Paladin is. The class should be designed to facilitate that idea, that playstyle.

I say to look at all the roleplaying stories of Paladins. Go to the 1d4Chan sup/tg/ Paladin threads and read them. Find the stories, the imagery they use, and see how people envision this class. Find a thread about Paladin fluff. Listen to the song "The Impossible Dream." This is the stuff that makes the class. Were the archetype so narrow, would a thread of “How I Paladin” exist? If it is so defined than wouldn’t everyone just play the same Paladin with the same behavior and ideas?

When you’re done you will see the archetype isn't just a holy warrior. It isn't just a champion of a god. He's not a Fighter with divine powers or even a Cleric with heavier armor. They are defenders of justice; defenders of their party, of their high ideals, and of the innocent. They are restricted by a code of conduct and a Paladin can lose everything if they fail that code.

Many aspects of the Paladin are simply too large to fit into a theme or several feat choices. Doing so would either dilute the Paladin idea or player’s base class. You’d have a Fighter who sucks at fighting or a Cleric who sucks at divine spellcasting. And in my experience multi-classing has never really been able to capture the feel something unique and original. The result instead feels hollow and scattered.

This class is unlike any other. No one tests the Cleric’s faith trying to force him to “fall”. So there’s something more here than what a Cleric can offer. And no one puts the Fighter up against more unbeatable odds. So the Paladin has something up on him too. There is something here that only the Paladin can claim for itself. Something that forces everyone to challenge it. The Paladin can exist. It has something special. Only those who understand the Paladin get it.

(I know there's tons of links but I wanted to provide the resources I could. There's plenty more if you're not feeling lazy.)

First, its not that hard to understand the Paladin, and playing a character in this manner is in no way restricted to the Paladin. If your Fighter isn't willing to face down impossible odds or your Cleric doesn't care about her moral code then that's your choice. I play every Good character I've ever had like this, and only one of them (my favorite actually) was a Paladin.

Second, there is nothing about the Paladin being unrestricted by alignment that would in anyway stifle someone who plays like this. You can still play exactly the way you want to. The only difference is that others will get to play the way they want too.