The How-It-Should-Be Paladin, v2.0

[Kioran]

What would you think of the addition of paladin variants based on different fighting styles, such as unarmored or lightly armored swashbuckling paladins? Mabye even paladins with a focus on ranged weapons such as firearms?

I thought that´s what the fighter class is for? You have tons of Feats which you can use to specialize in any desired direction of fighting or fighting style, plus a number of feats gained through ordinary progression.
Most things people desire to have can easily be achieved by using existing classes, core classes at that, multiclassing or liberally interpreting these classes (like, for example, Miyazaki Miko, who has a "social class" different from her core class).
The only real, and important problem addressed is the "front loaded" aspect, and Fax was right addressing that one. You do not, however, need a paladin class more versatile than the fighter, versatility in all things martial is his Job. other martial classes are still specialists.

[Morty]

Just curious: did anyone attempt to build a standard Lawful Good fall-when-kill-innocent paladin using this variant?
Also, there shouldn't be "Aura of Good" in the stat block since this paladin can be of Evil alignment.

[belboz]

I think the following mantles will more or less duplicate standard Paladin powers: Purity, Redemption, Valor, Alliance, Diligence (a paladin can gain two more mantles in addition to these, which are a bonus that go beyond a standard paladin's powers). This gives the following Paladinic code:

-Never commit an evil act
-Never willingly associate with evil or the undead
-Always forgive those whose intentions were good
-Never use intimidation
-Protect your mount
-Never give up until all options are truly exhausted

I think the first line covers "don't kill the innocent." In general, it's not a bog-standard paladinic code (there are a lot of unforgiving paladins out there, and a lot who are happy to intimidate the evil; by contrast, a lot of paladinic codes have rules about honorable combat and lying, which the above does not--always being honorable in combat and never lying gains the paladin an extra attack bonus and a sense motive bonus, respectively), but it's not too wildly off.

In the other direction, the Paladin's code laid out in the SRD is, essentially, Purity, Justice (sort of), Honor (sort of--although the SRD is more concerned with poison and is not concerned with CDG/flanking/etc), Honesty, Perseverence (sort of; there's no mantle that really covers "punishing those who threaten innocents"), and Charity (sort of, although my guess is that few DMs interpret "help the needy" as running to 20% of the Paladin's treasure). This gives the following mantle abilities:

-Turn undead
-Diplomacy bonus
-Charm ability
-Sense motive bonus
-Divination abilities
-Attack bonuses
-Detect Chaos
-Smite Chaos
-DR/SR for allies

Plus one mantle left over; probably Alliance (which gives a mount for, effectively, free, plus the opportunity cost of taking the mantle).

[Theodoxus]

I really think the Ranger should be recrafted around this concept. Basically you have 'Fighter' who can specialize in combat really specifically or broadly and is unrestricted by alignment; the the 'Paladin' who can fashion himself utilizing the mantles and probably taking direction from his god, and is limited to the four extreme alignments.

This leaves Ranger - who is basically the hybrid fighter/druid to the Paladin's hybrid fighter/cleric. As such, the Ranger should be relegated to only the 5 neutral alignments and have a similar theme (though 'mantle' doesn't fit the nature of the beast.) Heh, could just use 'natures'... have five natures to choose from 'neutral, good, evil, lawful, chaotic' with multiple traits in each that represent animal aspects or somesuch... Perhaps make them more like the talent trees from the upcoming Saga Edition of SWRPG.... With prereqs and escalating / branching abilities.

With the two classes together, you've completely covered the divine aspect of the fighter archetype. unfortunately, I have no idea where that puts the poor barbarian - but I never understood that class anyway, other than some extra speed an hps. Meh.

Theo

[Morty]

I really think the Ranger should be recrafted around this concept. Basically you have 'Fighter' who can specialize in combat really specifically or broadly and is unrestricted by alignment; the the 'Paladin' who can fashion himself utilizing the mantles and probably taking direction from his god, and is limited to the four extreme alignments.

This leaves Ranger - who is basically the hybrid fighter/druid to the Paladin's hybrid fighter/cleric. As such, the Ranger should be relegated to only the 5 neutral alignments and have a similar theme (though 'mantle' doesn't fit the nature of the beast.) Heh, could just use 'natures'... have five natures to choose from 'neutral, good, evil, lawful, chaotic' with multiple traits in each that represent animal aspects or somesuch... Perhaps make them more like the talent trees from the upcoming Saga Edition of SWRPG.... With prereqs and escalating / branching abilities.

With the two classes together, you've completely covered the divine aspect of the fighter archetype. unfortunately, I have no idea where that puts the poor barbarian - but I never understood that class anyway, other than some extra speed an hps. Meh.

Theo

No. Let's not make rangers "nature paladins". Maybe it's just me, but rangers can really exist without making them tree-huggin' almost-druid hippies. And what's not understandable in barbarian?

[Theodoxus]

Of course they can, but we call them Scouts.

Rangers are tree-huggin' hippies, who are the avenging (as opposed to defending druids) avatars of the trees. I didn't write them that way, TSR did, and the stereotype has stuck.

As for the Barbi - they were truly the last bastion for the lowly d12, and now with Knights and Warblades, they aren't even that. Conan holdout? seriously, I don't know. Rangers can do everything better than a barbi except take hits. If it weren't for Rage, which has caused more death to barbarians in my games than it ever helped - they'd be second class lightly armored fighters.

Seriously, they bring very little to the table that can't be more readily handled by any other melee class. If you're not lawful, taking a 1 level dip for the extra speed is great - provided you don't want to wear heavy armor. As a complete class, they're lacking - what's not not to understand?

[Morty]

Of course they can, but we call them Scouts.

Rangers are tree-huggin' hippies, who are the avenging (as opposed to defending druids) avatars of the trees. I didn't write them that way, TSR did, and the stereotype has stuck.

Um. You do realize that if you design Ranger class properly, Ranger can be scout or tree-huggin' hippie? In fact, I don't see any problem with that in Core D&D.

As for the Barbi - they were truly the last bastion for the lowly d12, and now with Knights and Warblades, they aren't even that. Conan holdout? seriously, I don't know. Rangers can do everything better than a barbi except take hits. If it weren't for Rage, which has caused more death to barbarians in my games than it ever helped - they'd be second class lightly armored fighters.

Seriously, they bring very little to the table that can't be more readily handled by any other melee class. If you're not lawful, taking a 1 level dip for the extra speed is great - provided you don't want to wear heavy armor. As a complete class, they're lacking - what's not not to understand?

This makes no sense. Rage is Barbarians' main class feature, and it makes them at least on par with other melee classes, and is what makes barbarians different, along with other minor class features. I can't really see how Rage can casue death to Barbarian. And I can't really see Ranger fighting in melee better than Barbarian.

[fireinthedust]

two things:

1) I'm finding players for a game where this is the paladin used. Would anyone want to playtest it? Good varients only, 4th level to start. Age of Portals, in the Finding Players section. Go for your life!

2) What about mantles for domains other than alignment? Like for "fire paladins" or whatever. Heck, a set of mantles for thralls of particular patrons, or beholder cults, would be fun.

[MuteVampire]

I always thought the Barbarian was supposed to be the guy who doesn't bother trying to avoid hits, but (and I think you'll agree) for the purpose of being the guy best suited to take on things that easily ignore high AC, his damage reduction is nothing shy of pitiable. no matter the level, the DR barbs get is nothing shy of pitiful for that level. Double it and it's still fairly sad. Barbs as a class would make more sense if their DR was significantly higher, and/or they came with some way to get around spells.


I think the feel the class designers were shooting for with the barb is "tank" his hit points are generally staggering (especially if your GM is like mine and maximizes all hit points for everyone) and his ability to take a hit, when it does come, is generally higher than others (especially with the bonus HPs from Rage)

It could be argued that with a general power buff (level 1 barb ability, Rage hit points are lost first, [so when rage fades you don't die if you have the HP bonus-10 health left when it's over] better DR, some degree of SR possibly, [though that's out of the general feel for the class]) and perhaps some minor tweaking beyond this would balance out this under-powered class, though I leave it to people who have forgotten more about the rules than i'll ever know to figure out how bad a set of ideas these are

The only reason for adding on the barb power for better raging is there are spells and other means to get rage, but nobody does it like the master. Yes, anyone can have the Rage spell cast on them, but if they get the crap beat ou of them, they're going to be hurting somethin fierce afterwords. A barbarian, not so much

[Theodoxus]

IMO, DR would be better served if it reduced from each source of damage... Get hit with a flaming greatax under the influence of Power Attack with 15 STR, and you'd get (1d12-DR) [axe] + (1d6-DR) [flaming] + (2x Power Attack bonus-DR) + (2-DR) [Str bonus]. So a 7th level barbi, with 1 point if DR against a 7th level fighter would take (0-11)+(0-5)+13+1 [average is 22 points] VS ((1-12)+(1-6)+14+2) - 1) [average is 25 points].

Not a huge difference, but it would help some. If it was likewise applied vs magical attacks, that'd help - and would be more in character than straight Spell Resistance would be. To really help the poor Barbi out - all the DR would be applied to each die of damage. Makes the highest level barbarians unhurtable by magic missile, and pretty much able to take a lot of damage spells at ground zero - but there are still plenty of things out there that would stop them cold.

A caveat might be they only have their DR when they aren't held, stunned, unconscious, etc. A cleric could Hold Person them and then minions could beat the barbi down.

Meh.

Still don't understand the reason for the class. Give fighters a Raging Talent tree and get rid of the goofy thing.

[Khoran]

First off, let me say that I love this change to the Paladin class. I like that it is open to more alignments then LG and that the class has a very customizable feel. Quick questions on it though, if you don't mind.

First is just on the compatability between two of the mantles, specifically Freedom and Liberty. Does using the Charm granted by Liberty (or any charm spell.) conflict with the Freedom Mantle? I would just like a ruling on this.

Thanks for your time and thank you for designing this class. I'm planning to offer this option to my players when I next GM, assuming you don't mind.

[Fax Celestis]

I would say that since charm person alters how they feel towards you but does not control them that it does not violate the Freedom mantle.

Feel free to use it. Let me know how it goes if you do.

[Spikes01k]

Seams overpowered! No base class has Full BAB, D10 HD, spells however small they are, and TWO good saves!!

[Fax Celestis]

Seams overpowered! No base class has Full BAB, D10 HD, spells however small they are, and TWO good saves!!

The Ranger has full BAB, more skills, casting, and a d8. The Paladin as presented in the PHB has full BAB, one good save, a d10, Divine Grace, as well as casting. The Duskblade (PHB-II) has full BAB, two good saves, a d8, and better casting. The Hexblade (CWar) has full BAB, two good saves, a d8, and better casting.

There are others.

[Wizard of the Coat]

I love the way it makes the paladin a playable class all the way up till 20th level. I also however feel it is overpowered, even when compared to the tome of battle classes, and I will briefly try and explain why this is. Quite a few of the abilities use social role playing restrictions as a means of balancing in game mechanical bonuses. This should not a balancing factor as that implies that all characters should be given these bonuses if they behaved in that manner. Being more focussed to these is an explaination, but still I believe it is unfair using a roleplaying restriction as a means of granting more power. ((note: I'm not saying they should not have these restrictions or should lose the powers, merely that it should not be used as an explaination for making the powers stronger)). Therefore non game mechanical restrictions should hardly be used for balancing abilities.

As most also have in-game mechanical penalties I believe this has been sufficiently taken into account. Yet when I view the kind of restrictions given and compare them to the bonuses it seems rather unbalanced yet again. For example the HONOR ability grants CHA to attack rolls and restricts flanking and tripping and such.

Tripping is mostly good for gaining a temporary bonus due to them being prone, yet forces you to waste an attack that otherwise could have cause damage. The bonus for the trip is +4 at most, which the honor ability offsets completely with a charisma bonus (which is easily +4 or higher for any paladin). So it's no penalty at all as there no longer is a need to trip an opponent to get this bonus.

Flanking only grants a +2 bonus and allows sneak attacks. Sneak attacks are not available to the paladin and the +2 is easily offset with the continues +4 or more bonus again again making it not a restriction, yet more of a continuous bonus. This would mostly be a restriction upon the paladins allies who could not take advantage of the flanks and thus effectively is taking from the allies to give to the paladin.

Tome of battle maneuvers are useful only a handfull of times per combat and not continuously granting +4 or more to hit and most of them are little more powerful then a smite attack, except for the very high level ones). ((general note on tome of battle: it seems the most that these classes have is re usability of fancy maneuvers each combat rather then set amounts of times each day; which is easy enough to build into core classes and should be build in to be honest))

To make it more balanced is to make the bonuses granted scale more with level and not given instantly as currently the amount of bonuses given by a single mantle could be used by most core classes to fill up all levels, even most tome of battle classes would be able to use two to fill up their level based benifits and the rest to ofset their martial maneuvers and these classes don't have 2 good saves, a host of additional class abilities smite/divine grace etc... and some limited spellcasting.

[fireinthedust]

I don't know if i agree with that, Wiz. In-character restrictions are under-valued by some goups that don't rp as much as others; but number retrictions also depend on the DM to enforce it.

As it stands with the standard Paladin, their code is only an issue if the DM enforces certain aspects or challenges. example: the badguys have a gem, they're uber powerful so the PCs can fight them BUT the paladin isn't allowed to steal. that's an RP challenge.

Granted, tripping and flanking might not come up in a kick-in-the-door encounter with orcs or standard monsters BUT what if the PCs are not allowed to kill a foe (like a CG Titan who's charmed by a cursed Helm), and have no chance to grapple him. Let's say they also don't have immobilization magic. The Paladin, who's the tank of the party, is the only one who could trip the Target, but isn't allowed to. Meanwhile the rest of the party is worried about getting stomped or exploded.

I think style of play definitely alters what is powerful and what isn't. raw kick-in-the-door play maybe yes, raw RP maybe no.

A class that gets loads of extra attacks of op, or doesn't incur them easily, might be useless if the DM doesnt use that rule. Ditto spell resistance if the DM uses only tank badguys.

although that's just my 2cp (adventures should be tailored to PCs, right?), and for all I know it's an abomination of a class ;)
Maybe 2 good saves are a bit much;

FAX: would you consider giving them the monk progression for saves? Or something?

[Wizard of the Coat]

I don't know if i agree with that, Wiz. In-character restrictions are under-valued by some goups that don't rp as much as others; but number retrictions also depend on the DM to enforce it.

As it stands with the standard Paladin, their code is only an issue if the DM enforces certain aspects or challenges. example: the badguys have a gem, they're uber powerful so the PCs can fight them BUT the paladin isn't allowed to steal. that's an RP challenge.

Granted, tripping and flanking might not come up in a kick-in-the-door encounter with orcs or standard monsters BUT what if the PCs are not allowed to kill a foe (like a CG Titan who's charmed by a cursed Helm), and have no chance to grapple him. Let's say they also don't have immobilization magic. The Paladin, who's the tank of the party, is the only one who could trip the Target, but isn't allowed to. Meanwhile the rest of the party is worried about getting stomped or exploded.

I think style of play definitely alters what is powerful and what isn't. raw kick-in-the-door play maybe yes, raw RP maybe no.

A class that gets loads of extra attacks of op, or doesn't incur them easily, might be useless if the DM doesnt use that rule. Ditto spell resistance if the DM uses only tank badguys.

although that's just my 2cp (adventures should be tailored to PCs, right?), and for all I know it's an abomination of a class ;)
Maybe 2 good saves are a bit much;

FAX: would you consider giving them the monk progression for saves? Or something?

As with all things it is the DM which can make things interesting or chalenging. I've frequently played spellcasters in a number of RL games and I've never noticed them being any better as often RP was the awnser.
Still though I'm a firm believer that the game should be balanced in a non rp sense to ensure that in a straight fight each character has a chance to do something on roughly the same level as another. (mind you if I GM I usually restrict players to generic classes or use a classless system, so I may not be the best to argue what core classes should look like)

Aditionally I believe that rp should be encouraged only through rp benifits and hard coded mechanical things. If you are honorable and humble, the people will love you and your gods might bless you (independent on class). If you are vicious and cruel however, but manage to portrait the same honorable face cause your're that good a roleplayer then you too reap the benifits (though few roleplayers are good enough to deceive the gods themselves).

Also it might be a problem when facing the specific example laid down by you, but in any other fight he'd reign right over the fighter and even in that fight he could probably just deal non lethal damage to knock down the beasty (once more the -4 penalty isd ofset by charisma).

I'm not saying this is all bad, but there should be some "uses per day/uses per combat" restrictions upon these abilities to balance them.

[Fax Celestis]

FAX: would you consider giving them the monk progression for saves? Or something?

No. Their saves are good as-is. You want better saves, take the Mantle that gives Cha-to-Saves.

Aditionally I believe that rp should be encouraged only through rp benifits and hard coded mechanical things. If you are honorable and humble, the people will love you and your gods might bless you (independent on class). If you are vicious and cruel however, but manage to portrait the same honorable face cause your're that good a roleplayer then you too reap the benifits (though few roleplayers are good enough to deceive the gods themselves).

It is indeed possible to be honorable and humble without this class, but this is the only one I've seen that provides mechanical benefits for restrictions on action. It is those mechanical benefits that make this Paladin a worthwhile endeavor, and make it usable in a party setting.

The core fighter-types are weak--incredibly weak, so much so that I prefer not to use them. As such, I balance everything I create towards the Tome of Battle classes as they are much more balanced with full casters than anything else out there. Yes, if you put this class into a regular game its going to be powerful. But remember, this Paladin has a number of weaknesses: first is its evolving code; second is its dependence on melee; third is its dependence on four attributes (Str, Con, Wis, Cha), five if you take particular Mantles.

[Namillus]

Okay, so I'm new here, but I'm not one for introduction threads.

Decided to make my first post here, since I love this variant on the official Paladin.

However, I appear to have discovered a small error in the table: Namely, it is simply impossible for any character to get 0 level bonus spells (There's nothing on the key ability table), and therefore this version of the Paladin is spell-less for at least two levels. Is this, in fact, a misprint, or deliberate?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I presume the Purity Mantle would qualify a Lawful Good Paladin under these rules for entry into the Gray Guard PrC? If so, how does the Sacrament of Trust ability work concerning the Mantles? Admittedly, if you possess the Justice Mantle it might be a waste of time...

[Fax Celestis]

Okay, so I'm new here, but I'm not one for introduction threads.

Decided to make my first post here, since I love this variant on the official Paladin.

However, I appear to have discovered a small error in the table: Namely, it is simply impossible for any character to get 0 level bonus spells (There's nothing on the key ability table), and therefore this version of the Paladin is spell-less for at least two levels. Is this, in fact, a misprint, or deliberate?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I presume the Purity Mantle would qualify a Lawful Good Paladin under these rules for entry into the Gray Guard PrC? If so, how does the Sacrament of Trust ability work concerning the Mantles? Admittedly, if you possess the Justice Mantle it might be a waste of time...

It is deliberate. The regular Paladin doesn't get spells for more levels than that, and doesn't get cantrips!

The Purity mantle would qualify one for the Gray Guard. Sacrament of Trust-Mantle interaction should be merely a greater allowance in the fluff-resolutions of the mantles.

[Namillus]

Shouldn't the table read "-" for Orisons at first and second level, then? As it is, it implies that a Paladin should receive bonus Orisons where the rules state this is impossible. Just a thought. ^.^;

[Fax Celestis]

Shouldn't the table read "-" for Orisons at first and second level, then? As it is, it implies that a Paladin should receive bonus Orisons where the rules state this is impossible. Just a thought. ^.^;

Yeah, probably.

[Devils_Advocate]

I would say that since charm person alters how they feel towards you but does not control them that it does not violate the Freedom mantle.

... How is altering how someone feels not controlling them? Maybe it's not "commanding", which is what the Freedom Mantle specifically forbids, but it's certainly controlling.

And while someone might not object to their new feelings towards you after being charmed, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have objected to being charmed before you charmed them, had they been given a chance to object. It's rather like how a deceased person's lack of objection to being dead doesn't mean that they wouldn't have objected to being killed when they were alive, if given a chance.

Note too the similarity between the arguments

"Well, you only have limited conrol over your own emotions anyway. You can already naturally feel things that you don't want to feel, so there's no additional harm done by me forcing you to feel something you don't want to"

and

"Well, you only have limited conrol over how long you live anyway. You can already die when you don't want to, so me killing you now doesn't worsen the situation."

Which isn't to say that charming someone is as Evil as killing him, only that it's just as coercive. Indeed, I should think it not even as Evil as striking him. Sure, charming alters his mind, presumably without his consent, but the latter forces the sensory experience of pain into his mind, also presumably without his consent, and getting hit in the face is generally less pleasant than making a new friend. Of course, after the spell wore off, whether he'd be any less upset about being charmed than he would have been about being punched would be a different matter. No doubt it would depend upon the individual in question.

In any case, charming people without their prior consent definitely wouldn't be a preferred problem-solving method for a champion of Good any more than violence would. Even moreso for a champion of Chaotic Good.

P.S. It would really be a good idea to come up with less generic names than "Rebel" and "Tyrant". Unless you're assuming that the names you're giving the subclasses will actually used by characters in-game, in which case, replace "a good idea" with "absurd not" in the previous sentence.

[MeklorIlavator]

I think the idea is that Charm is essentially diplomacy made easy, and therefore is no more evil in this case than the paladin using diplomacy. This isn't to say that if he abuses his powers he won't get in trouble, but that used in a non abusive manner the ability isn't too offensive.

And regarding the names, I think that the generic names are used because the classes themselves are so varied, and so that the players can come up with names themselves. I don't think anyone will call themselves the "Paladin:subclass rebel". The current names are place holders so that it is easier to refer to each of the paladins.

[Fax Celestis]

I think the idea is that Charm is essentially diplomacy made easy, and therefore is no more evil in this case than the paladin using diplomacy. This isn't to say that if he abuses his powers he won't get in trouble, but that used in a non abusive manner the ability isn't too offensive.

And regarding the names, I think that the generic names are used because the classes themselves are so varied, and so that the players can come up with names themselves. I don't think anyone will call themselves the "Paladin:subclass rebel". The current names are place holders so that it is easier to refer to each of the paladins.

Exactly. On both counts.

[Valairn]

I was recently struck with an idea on this thing. Instead of having a single capstone, have like 1 or 2 capstones per alignment that they could potentially choose from when they hit level 20. Might be a lot of work for one level, but really when someone takes a single class to level 20, options are never a bad thing.

Also, some people like the flavor of a more "earthy" paladin. Growing wings irks some, not me, I like shiny Tyrael wings.

[Morty]

Yep, lack of wings is ceratinly good idea.

[Wardog]

First, I'd just like to say:

This looks really neat: lots of interesting ideas, and for the most part nicely balanced. Looks like a lot of work went in to it, too. Well done!


However, there are a couple of things that seem a little odd/off to me, as well as a couple of alternative name suggestions:

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 within 60' falls in combat before the Paladin falls.

Maybe rename this "sacrifice"?

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.[/quote]

Does this include animals and vermin? Will the paladin fall if he swats a fly? Or kills a dangerous animal in defence of himself or others?

Maybe it should be changed to exclude animals and vermin (and anything else with int<3). On the other hand, perhaps a Merciful paladin should be expected to atleast make an attempt to spare even evil people. (E.g. he must spare any enemy that surrenders or begs for mercy, and should offer the chance to surrender where possible).

Peace
The Paladin holds himself to a peaceful standard in accordance with his god's wishes. He loses all aspects of this mantle if he ever willingly enters into combat without trying to prevent it, or if he witnesses conflict without trying to prevent it.[/quote]

Does this "conflict" just mean combat, or does it include other forms of conflic (arguments etc)? And does it include conflict where both parties are involved willingly (e.g. a boxing match?)



Valor
A Paladin must be regal and valorous to combat the forces of evil. He loses all aspects of this mantle if he attempts to coerce or influence anyone through Intimidation.

This seems slightly inconsistent. Valor means courage, heroism, etc. Regal means like a king. One doesn't imply the other, and neither have any obvious negative relationship to intimidation.

If you want a "Valor" mantle, then the requirements could be to never flee from danger when the odds are in your favour, and never to flee - regardless of the odds - if doing so would leave others in danger.

Alternatively, a mantle that required the paladin to forgo intimidation could be "Diplomacy", although that would probably require different benefits as well.

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.


No feints seems a bit harsh to me. A feint is just moving your weapon in such a way as to make it harder for your opponent to predict what you are doing. I don't think anyone would reasonably consider it to be dishonourable. Maybe this should be replaced with prohibitions on coup-de-grace, dirty fighting (both the feat and any behaviour that could be considered dirty fighting), and requiring the paladin to always announce his presence before a fight. Possibly also to always (or at least to attept to) ensure his opponent has a fighting chance.

Discretion
A Paladin must protect themselves and not rush into combat. He loses all aspects of this mantle if he takes damage in the first round of combat.

"Discretion" sounds too positive a word for an Evil mantle. I'm not sure what would be better though. Maybe change this to "Cowardice", keep the same bonus, and make the paladin lose the bonus if he ever deliberately warns his victim before he makes an attack.

Liberty
The Paladin is committed to freeing all creatures from needless rules and regulations. He loses all aspects of this mantle if he does not fight for justice and equality among all beings, or if he prejudices against another being.



Oh, and just to be nit-picky: technically, tithe means a 10% tax.
Charity
The Paladin has sworn to tithe at least 20% of all his earnings (including treasure) to charity and the church. He loses all aspects of this mantle if he fails to tithe that amount.

[Fax Celestis]

Maybe rename this "sacrifice"?

Nah. I think Grace works better.

Does this include animals and vermin? Will the paladin fall if he swats a fly? Or kills a dangerous animal in defence of himself or others?

Maybe it should be changed to exclude animals and vermin (and anything else with int<3). On the other hand, perhaps a Merciful paladin should be expected to atleast make an attempt to spare even evil people. (E.g. he must spare any enemy that surrenders or begs for mercy, and should offer the chance to surrender where possible).

It probably shouldn't include unintelligent creatures.

Does this "conflict" just mean combat, or does it include other forms of conflic (arguments etc)? And does it include conflict where both parties are involved willingly (e.g. a boxing match?)

Any conflict, regardless of who, when, or how.

This seems slightly inconsistent. Valor means courage, heroism, etc. Regal means like a king. One doesn't imply the other, and neither have any obvious negative relationship to intimidation.

If you want a "Valor" mantle, then the requirements could be to never flee from danger when the odds are in your favour, and never to flee - regardless of the odds - if doing so would leave others in danger.

Alternatively, a mantle that required the paladin to forgo intimidation could be "Diplomacy", although that would probably require different benefits as well.

It may be slightly inconsistent, but it is the image I want to portray with that particular mantle.

No feints seems a bit harsh to me. A feint is just moving your weapon in such a way as to make it harder for your opponent to predict what you are doing. I don't think anyone would reasonably consider it to be dishonourable. Maybe this should be replaced with prohibitions on coup-de-grace, dirty fighting (both the feat and any behaviour that could be considered dirty fighting), and requiring the paladin to always announce his presence before a fight. Possibly also to always (or at least to attept to) ensure his opponent has a fighting chance.

"Feint" in this case means the combat action of using a Bluff check to feint your foe so he is flat-footed.

"Discretion" sounds too positive a word for an Evil mantle. I'm not sure what would be better though. Maybe change this to "Cowardice", keep the same bonus, and make the paladin lose the bonus if he ever deliberately warns his victim before he makes an attack.

"Discretion" can still be an ideal for the evil. A thief is discreet, as is an assassin.

Oh, and just to be nit-picky: technically, tithe means a 10% tax.

I know, but the point is made.

[Magnor Criol]

All of my comments center, as most people's, on the Mantles. Just a few details which in general are more fluff-based than not; overall I think this an awesome redux of the class.
Also, apologies if these have been mentioned before. I don't have the time at the moment to sift through the other pages of this thread (technically, I don't have the time now to post this, but...)


Conviction, Zeal, Bravado - losing these mantles upon a failed smite attack seems, themewise, a bad match. Those behaviors and traits are all about, basically, acting first and asking questions later, so smiting a creature that they honestly believed was a certain alignment, even if they were wrong, shouldn't count against them. It's about believing and acting in what you believe in, not about discerning where someone stands and giving them a chance to back out.
Think of Miko, actually: She tried Smite Evil on Roy because she honestly thought he was evil, based on circumstances. Her conviction or zeal led her to act on the conclusion, without taking the time to sit down and ask first. (Bravado would produce a similar result, but Miko didn't have bravado.)
Perhaps if it were changed to a loss of the mantle if the paladin consciously fails to smite an appropriate creature in battle when they have smite attempts remaining, or something along those lines; in that case, the paladin would have decided not to act on their beliefs, in some ways questioning them. Something where a paladin willfully decides to forestay from punishing what they view as a wrong choice in alignment, rather than punishing them for acting on conclusions drawn thanks to their beliefs.

Patience, Preserverance - I think that them suddenly not needing to breathe is a bit of an odd thing; it stands out somehow. But, that's just me, and it fits with the other abilities granted.
The effects gained from Patience seem to be a bit more appropriate under the mantle Preserverance (if you can last longer with out sleep, you're preservering, etc.) But then, I don't know where you'd stick what you currently have under Preserverance, and I like those bonuses.

Discretion - This has already been covered just above, but still. Just the word's feel..."Discretion is the better part of Valor," and with Valor being a good mantle...Perhaps "Self-Preservation"? Except that's similar language-wise to Survival. Not sure, and it can definitely work fine here, it's simply a matter of the connotation a word carries with it.

Anarchy - I'd define 'authority' a little better. What of a chaotic paladin who defers to a more experienced adventurer on the authority of his greater experience? Any time you submit, you recognize that somehow, they have authority over you in some way. "Authority due to law" or something, since I assume that's what you're getting at.
This is also an exceedingly powerful granted ability, isn't it? Essentially, the paladin and all his chums in the area get a risk-less reroll for all damage rolls, they just roll both at the same time instead of spreading them out. But I guess since it's just damage rolls, it's not as much of a deal as it initially sounds.


Also, I think it'd be interesting if the atonements were tinted a little to the alignment they're for; specifically, I'm thinking that for the chaotic mantles, it'd be interesting if some of the atonements had little to nothing to do with their mantles, or if they required some sort of roll to determine. The other alignments already do that already to some extent, it's mostly chaotic mantles that'd need the tweaking if you wanted to do this. I'm not sure if it's feasible, but it certainly would be interesting.

The questions I raised are just fluffs and minor mechanics; as-is the class is excellent themewise and shipshape mechanically. I love the way it's been worked into a class that both punishes and rewards for character behavior, something a paladin really needs to do because of its nature, and I also love how with the mantles the paladin really becomes a party-picker-upper.

Any conflict, regardless of who, when, or how.

I think that something like a boxing match would be less a conflict and more of a competition. Both parties are willing and enjoying themselves, or at least they both volunteered, etc. (Of course, someone forced into a boxing match or something would be a different situation.) Does the mantle allow for a differentiation between conflict and competition like this?