Paladin, a character class that should not be?

[Cluedrew]

I think why they chose to have a class based around conviction is for two main reasons. The first is that is how D&D represents most things, create a class for it. It allows you to work the idea deeper in the class, for instance you can set up the abilities to match what the conviction is about. Like the paladin's Lay On Hands, the good guys don't have a monopoly on healing but it is often been associated with holy things. So you can have a wizard swear some oath but he would be using his skills for his conviction, not drawing power from it.

That is not only in terms of the currant implementation. In fantasy literature the wizard who is dedicated to something usually spends a lot of time in the tower studding, gathering knowledge and living for a long time. In other words it is a very different arch-type, in my experience, and doesn't quite fit the same mechanical representation.

We seem to agree on many of the arguments, while differing slightly in conclusions: you consider the paladin class (not the just the concept) part of the baby, which should be salvaged, where I see it as part of the bathwater, which can be disposed of without injury to the paladin concept.

Unless I'm misreading you.

I think you are, I am mostly attached to the concept. There are some parts of the class I like, but there are somewhere between the baby and the bath water.

Spoiler: Quoting Question

Show

P.S. Is here any way to get the little arrow link to the original post without using reply with quote?

[Eloel]

• A) Prove that versatile or broad mechanics are necessarily an improvement over more narrow or specific ones in the context of D&D design goals.
• B) Establish a standard of versatility something must meet to "deserve" being a core class.
• C) Establish in ways paladin fails those that standards that no other D&D class does.

A) If implementation 1 supports model 1, and implementation 2 supports model 1 and model 2 at least equally well, implementation 2 is superior to implementation 1. There does not need to be a proof for this, because it's apparent - it lets more models to be supported by the system.

B) This is a comparative argument only - if there are classes that add coverage for more desired character concepts, they should take place of the narrower classes in core, assuming authoring time and book space is a limited commodity. This can be reached simply by seeing that the whole point of core is to reach a wider and more generic audience. Figuring out which of the non-core classes are more efficient in terms of space and coverage is left as an exercise to the reader. (hint: "all" is a good starting point)

C) Core classes: An argument could be made for Wizard vs Sorcerer, at least in core, since they could be argued to be variants of the same class, I don't necessarily agree, since their fluff is vastly different. Rangers are on a similar boat with Paladins, since Favored Enemy does not warrant creating a whole class around either, in my opinion. Rangers, at least, are versatile enough that while they're basically a variant Druid/Fighter, they can still be in all flavors of Druid/Fighter. Paladins, on the other hand, are Cleric/Fighters, and are a very specific brand of Cleric/Fighters.

@cluedrew
You need to add ;post# to the quote, which can be found via getting a singular link to the post.

[LibraryOgre]

Oh, I have objections to those annoying hybrids as well, I just wasn't mentioning them because this thread is about the Paladin's failings. Actually, I'm a bit more extreme, and think that Druid and Cleric are redundant as well (clerics of nature:people who's devotion to nature gives them divine magic. druids: people who's devotion to nature gives them divine magic). Barbarian and Fighter should be combined into one more generic class (whether your 1/encounter buff is a mad frenzy or a calm battle focus is your choice), bards should be a variant sorcerer, ranger and paladins should be fighter/cleric PRCs or crusaders, wizard should be replaced with fixed-list spellcasters (or Arcanists), ect.

Some of this starts straying into 3.x specific territory... in 2e, after all, a scout simply is a thief, most of the time.

Now, as for the difference between a druid and a cleric? Certainly, you could condense them into a single class, and roll in wizards as well, as there's not really a compelling reason for there to be a difference between divine and arcane magic when they use identical mechanics.

But the concept for the druid and the cleric don't draw from the same stereotypes... while both are "divine casters", and you might get some mileage out of a nature cleric v. a druid (see the entire Moonshae trilogy, which is more or less about a Druid becoming a nature cleric), they don't draw from the same well. Archbishop Turpin and the Knights Templar are not the same concept as the Druids that Caesar wrote about, or the 19th century mesopagan druidic revival that influences AD&D druids... heck, AD&D druids have more overlap, in many ways, with wizards, given the overlap of Merlin.

IMO, this gets trickier to track with later editions. While AD&D and OD&D had as their inspirations literary, legendary, and historical figures, later editions increasingly have D&D as their inspiration... a 3.x druid is the way it is, not because of "Druids", but because of 2nd edition Druids, who are the way they are because of 1e Druids.

[BayardSPSR]

C) Core classes: An argument could be made for Wizard vs Sorcerer, at least in core, since they could be argued to be variants of the same class, I don't necessarily agree, since their fluff is vastly different. Rangers are on a similar boat with Paladins, since Favored Enemy does not warrant creating a whole class around either, in my opinion. Rangers, at least, are versatile enough that while they're basically a variant Druid/Fighter, they can still be in all flavors of Druid/Fighter. Paladins, on the other hand, are Cleric/Fighters, and are a very specific brand of Cleric/Fighters.

Somehow I always found the "dual wield or shoot arrows!" binary boring.

Now, as for the difference between a druid and a cleric? Certainly, you could condense them into a single class, and roll in wizards as well, as there's not really a compelling reason for there to be a difference between divine and arcane magic when they use identical mechanics.

I'd support that motion on that logic - but that probably doesn't mean much, since the closer a motion is to fundamentally reworking D&D tropes, the more likely I am to support it.

IMO, this gets trickier to track with later editions. While AD&D and OD&D had as their inspirations literary, legendary, and historical figures, later editions increasingly have D&D as their inspiration... a 3.x druid is the way it is, not because of "Druids", but because of 2nd edition Druids, who are the way they are because of 1e Druids.

This actually brings up a conceptual problem I had starting in the old "Is beta5e Awful?" thread. How do you explore possible answers to the design goals of a D&D edition that has the design goal of "being D&D?" Especially when it's not the first edition to have that design goal...

[veti]

I think why they chose to have a class based around conviction is for two main reasons. The first is that is how D&D represents most things, create a class for it. It allows you to work the idea deeper in the class, for instance you can set up the abilities to match what the conviction is about. Like the paladin's Lay On Hands, the good guys don't have a monopoly on healing but it is often been associated with holy things. So you can have a wizard swear some oath but he would be using his skills for his conviction, not drawing power from it.

Not necessarily. The 'Vow of Poverty' - gets a lot of flak, but it does show there's a viable alternative mechanic for characters to gain extra powers in exchange for voluntarily accepting restrictions on their behaviour. If you redefine the paladin's code as a "Vow of Justice" or something, then anyone could take it, and gain paladin-like powers, without changing class.

(Incidentally, a 1e paladin was explicitly limited in how much loot they were allowed to carry - it was something like "one magic weapon, one magic armour and shield, up to 4 miscellaneous items, and a few other bits and pieces" - any surplus had to be donated to... something.)

[Cluedrew]

Thanks Eloel, I think I got it.

"Why does the guy with conviction have to be the fullplate/sword dude with minor spells? Why can't the wizard swear such oaths? If he can, why don't we just stick the same oath to a cleric/fighter and call it a day?"

The third question is I think the simpler of the two. No reason if we have a generic oath mechanic that can be applied to wizards, cleric/fighters and other classes. More important and complex part is the first two, because it has to do with design choices that are not universally better than the other options.

In my mind it comes down to breadth vs. depth. Having a class dedicated to the concept allows for greater depth to tie the mechanics together and so on. Having a oath mechanic for all classes would have greater breadth, allowing more classes to use it and so on.

Now the breath option does have some advantages, the total number of character concepts it supports is greater for one, but it also has some disadvantages. Even if having a lot of your character reflect the oath isn't important there are other issues that come up.

The first off, first off "oath bound warrior" is a much stronger arch-type than say "oath bound wizard" or "oath bound thief". By the way I'm speaking of oaths like the paladin's dedication to goodness, not the thief's guild code of silence, which would probably have different mechanical repercussions and so. So they would probably get used less anyways.

Then there is the fact that not all classes would benefit from the mechanical bonuses from the oath. A wizard is going to get very little use out of smite evil and lay on hands will to little more than free up some spell slots for a cleric. And similar problems will come up for other possible benefits.

There is one other factor, and that is that D&D's main tool for representing character's is classes. For better or worse that is the one it has chosen and although there are others (feats, skills, race) none of them have the same power as a class to define a character. So I guess that the designers wanted, something for the characters that are defined by their dedication and not simply an add on.

Now I would like to say I don't believe that creating a class was the superior choice, so going with something else is not a bad choice. For example something like the "Vow of..." system. Just that this choice has some advantages and is a viable choice. The existence of other viable choices does not negate that.

About the wizard, I was not speaking of all wizard characters, just the ones I have seen in fantasy literature enough to actually remember. I'm not saying that a wizard who gets spell casting ability from moral conviction couldn't exist (although that is starting to get into cleric territory) but that is less common of an arch-type. I guess the designers felt it was rare enough that they didn't have to include any extra mechanical sport for it. Sorry if the last post wasn't very clear, I blurted that one out quickly.

[BayardSPSR]

The third question is I think the simpler of the two. No reason if we have a generic oath mechanic that can be applied to wizards, cleric/fighters and other classes. More important and complex part is the first two, because it has to do with design choices that are not universally better than the other options.

...

The first off, first off "oath bound warrior" is a much stronger arch-type than say "oath bound wizard" or "oath bound thief". By the way I'm speaking of oaths like the paladin's dedication to goodness, not the thief's guild code of silence, which would probably have different mechanical repercussions and so. So they would probably get used less anyways.

Then there is the fact that not all classes would benefit from the mechanical bonuses from the oath. A wizard is going to get very little use out of smite evil and lay on hands will to little more than free up some spell slots for a cleric. And similar problems will come up for other possible benefits.

...

About the wizard, I was not speaking of all wizard characters, just the ones I have seen in fantasy literature enough to actually remember. I'm not saying that a wizard who gets spell casting ability from moral conviction couldn't exist (although that is starting to get into cleric territory) but that is less common of an arch-type. I guess the designers felt it was rare enough that they didn't have to include any extra mechanical sport for it. Sorry if the last post wasn't very clear, I blurted that one out quickly.

General oath mechanic... That's a cool thought. Mind if I shamelessly steal that for my homebrew system?

Not necessarily as a character-creation thing, even... I really like the idea that at any moment of appropriately high drama or emotion, a character can fall to their knees, cry out a heartfelt oath to the heavens, and receive character- and oath-appropriate abilities/bonuses as long as they hold true.

The tricky part would be working out the mechanics, of course, but I like the concept.

[Cluedrew]

No I don't mind, and you seem to have a really cool interpretation of it to.

... I got nothing else significant to say.

[McStabbington]

I think you are, I am mostly attached to the concept. There are some parts of the class I like, but there are somewhere between the baby and the bath water.

Honestly, I would phrase it somewhat differently: every class can be about good, but that's something you add on to the simple concept that already drives the class. A good wizard is basically a wizard who says "I use my long hours reading in a library . . . for great justice!" Good sorcerors = "I use my smoldering good looks and force of personality . . . for great justice!" Good bards = "I shall sing you the song of my people . . . for great justice!" Even good clerics = "I shall put my hands on you and heal you and make hundreds of pounds of nourishing wafers that taste like cardboard . . . for great justice!"

A paladin is the concept you pick when you want your great justice uncut with anything else. It's not about books, or singing, or sneaking about picking locks, or flavorless wafer provision. It's just doing the right thing.

[goto124]

Flavorless wafers? Prestidigitation!

[BayardSPSR]

A paladin is the concept you pick when you want your great justice uncut with anything else. It's not about books, or singing, or sneaking about picking locks, or flavorless wafer provision. It's just docutting the right thing.

I fail to see how even the most righteous stabbing dilutes justice less than these other things.

Move, Zig!

[CursedRhubarb]

Paladins are the ultimate anti evil class. Against non evil things...not so much. They drop down to being like a fighter with less feats.

Or GM specifically banned anyone from rolling a pally for our game due to the lawfull good limitations and actions a pally has to do. They also hinted that any time anyone plays a paladin they throw in the wrench of the burning building with screams coming from within scenario. Which by their rules if the paladin does not jump into the flames as is and with or without help tries to save anyone inside, no matter if they are able or not. If they do jump in the paladin either saves the people and takes a bunch of damage, or dies trying.

The also have to help every single person who even looks like they could use help, give away practically all their money so they will be almost always broke.

[LibraryOgre]

The also have to help every single person who even looks like they could use help, give away practically all their money so they will be almost always broke.

On this note, AD&D Paladins are supposed to tithe 10% off the top, and keep only enough for maintenance.