1st Edition vs 5th Edition Paladins in Dungeons and Dragons
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Install Friends & Dragons for free 🐲 iOS/Android: fndga.me/3dLHCqV and get a special bonus pack
🏵️
Support OSQ!
Watch all OSQ content Ad Free & Sponsorship Free! ► www.osqtv.com/
Grab a Subscription for our Discord to Receive Exclusive OSQ Material ► / discord
Subscribe to our other RUclips Channels!
One Shot Questers ► / oneshotquestersofficial
One Shot Qampaigns ► / @oneshotquests
One Shot Questing ► / @oneshortquesters
OSQ Social Media Links
Discord ► / discord
Twitter! ► / oneshotquesters
Instagram! ► / oneshotquesters
Facebook! ► / oneshotquesters
► Contact One Shot Questers
oneshotquest@gmail.com
#dnd #dungeonsanddragons #paladin
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
Install Friends & Dragons for free 🐲 iOS/Android: fndga.me/3dLHCqV and get a special bonus pack
🏵
I cant find the guild :(
Ad-barian: You know what doesn't suck?
Me in excitement: what?
Ad-barian: having friends
Me: *looks down slowly and awkwardly
Can't wait for bard to find out his 1e counterpart is a rouge
Its also funny how paladins in 5th edition can summon as many horses as they have spell slots everyday.
@@kellenwilson5493 what? How?
You forgot something
1st: "I can make a horse once every 10 years"
5th: "I can do that every 10 minutes"
20 if you dont even want to waste a spell slot.
And not just a horse, you can also get fricken mastiff large enough to ride!
And here I thought only horse could make horses.
@@matttaylor1996 no find steed is not a ritual
@@Bassman-mp8lh don't forget summon greater steed
1-st edition fighters had to have at least 17 charisma to even become paladins. And considering they rolled 3d6 without shuffling paladins were VERY rare.
Depending on the method used. Unearthed Arcana expanded the methods.
@@GodwinXZ Yes, true. I'm talking about original D&D. But in any method it was hard to get a 17 in specific characteristic
@@thenorthremembers1624 when saying 1e most people are referring to 1e ad&d. TOG is used for the original game
@@RunningWithRoses It is strange that 1-st edition is not actually first but ok. And I think most common abbreviation is ODD
Actually, they allowed shuffling. Even GYGAX is on the record as allowing shuffling which roll goes to which stat.
Can't wait to see the 5e bard to find out the 1e bard is a druid subclass.
Prestige class thank you very much sir.
Knowing the Bards, they'll probably end up making peace and teaming up to seduce the nearest dragon. :p
Not gonna lie, I predict their battle is just "Love Is a Battlefield" but for TTRPG.
I thought it was a thief/rogue subclass
HOW?!?! Bards were the first ones to discover how to use magic in D&D lore, so how are they a subclass?
Fun fact: 5e paladins actually can summon a horse. There's a nifty little spell they get access to called "find steed" it's great. I definitely recommend for kicking 1e ass
Casts find greater steed:
I HAVE A FLYING HORSE NOW, BOW BEFORE ME
Upgrading from a horse to a rhinoceros is like going from a 4 by 4 to a main battle tank.
"Alexa, cast Find Steed".
Horse starts ringing.
"Bard, why is my horse in your room?"
And much better than 1e's version, because they can do it again and again by just expending a spell slot. At worst, they might have to wait until the next day to summon their horse again.
Uber for DnD
1st edition: waits 10 years to summon a new horse
5th edition: casts "find steed" as a 2nd level spell
Can seems like 5e is spoiled by comparison doesn't it?
5th Edition: I can also upgrade it to have a fly speed at later levels!
@@lornelthaltmer I mean the power level has definetly increased since in 1e (and 2e) characters where basically foot soldiers (and of the "cannon fodder" type) that go on adventure and don't really get powerful until like level 10 while 5e characters are supposed to be heroes even from level 1
1e Paladin: **Is a fighter subclass**
Also 1e Paladin: **Laughs in Fully-Staffed Castle at Level 10**
Laughs in being a FUCKING ANGEL at lvl 20
@@TinyGobos Cleric:Amateurs
wait. He gets castle at level 10 ?
@@ЖаркоШкребић Yeah, at level 10, all 1e fighters got a fully staffed castle and title.
@@seventhslayer6935 oh my. I dont unfortunaly have books or sources of 1e, so i dont know how it was then playing them. This with castle does sound really cool actualy. Better the. Knight or noble backround.
First Edition Paladins… Wow. This is a real throw back!
A throwback to the oath of throwing it back
So, should I make an oath of throwing it back paladin that's a permanent lawful good human, and ask my dm to homebrew make me swap classes to fighter if I break that?
@@johnnelson4411 That wouldn't actually be homebrew. If you break your oath, you can either become an oathbreaker (which requires you to be evil), or you swap classes, probably to fighter. At least I think that's how it works.
@@Pyranders I beileve its based on how you break your oath aswell for Example, Killing in blind rage repeatedly = paladin to barbarian, Losing faith in your oath but you keep your fighting skills learned = fighter, or for a weird one! You end up realizing your faith was just your dormant powers needing to be manifested = sorcerer. Does it make perfect sense? No, but it allows players and sessions to be more flexible.
(Slow) 👏
Damn... He never stood a chance.
RIP Andfrend the once every decade horse.
RIP Andfrend 🤣
It wasn’t a fight, it was an execution
Yes, RIP the good horse
Anyway, *casts find steed*
He will come back in a few years
5e paladin is one of the more powerful classes, pretty hard to beat. (Also, you don't automatically become an oathbreaker if you do one bad thing, you just have to seek redemption from another paladin or cleric. Unless you irreversibly go against your oath. Then yes oathbreaker is an option)
Edit: clarity
Even then it's not enough to do something "bad" since you specifically need to be breaking your oath to whatever deity you swore that oath to (it is theoretically possible to play a non-lawful good paladin that isn't an oath breaker if you get you're story setup right 🤔 )
@@homerman76 yeah I guess I just wanted to simplify my explanation by saying "bad" even though it's not technically just that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
well technicly you dont lose your powers unless you do something that goes againt your oath, other than that you can do what you want
And technically what “bad” is depends on who your god is. You could totally have a lawful evil non-oathbreaker Paladin.
@@_somerandomguyontheinternet_ Step one choose evil god, step two profit
I wonder what Ad-barian is going to do when it's bard's turn for a throwdown - you know Bard will totally overhear that ad.
I like to imagine that the Barbarian episode of this series is just gonna be 2 friendly himbos bonding over their shared interests in becoming too angry to die
@@SAI-Max_D I want this so bad
Most 1e vs 5e battles : Back and forth before they both come to an understanding
1e Paladin vs 5e Paladin : One sided massacre
Tenets of Conquest: Your victory must be so overwhelming that your enemies’ will to fight is shattered forever.
I'd like this comment, but i don't want to ruin the number
@@darwinduckdoesarts You call it “ruining” I call it helping them get to 420
Realistically, it'd be a massacre in 1e's favor because 1e gets a literal army
i remember 2e palidins were required you to roll really high on stats, be human, follow your oat, including a 10% gold tithe and I think a few more. but if you were a palidin in 2e you are one of the toughest characters in the party
Also allowd 1 magic item of weapon,shield armor,thats it.Kits GALORE(semi subclasses that replaces/gives/removes skills abilities and limits with some perks) 2e was fun......but THAC0......
Paladin subclass: Oat of the Quaker.
They get really good ability with a holy advanger and always under protion vs evil and give it to friends near them as well. That gave a +2 to hit saves and ac vs evil things and evil from other plans can't tuch you and a -2 to hit saves and ac for evil things
Gee these paladins really love their oats.
@@hypershadic98 thac0 was so easy to replace tho. its literally what we use now, except sort of... from the other side. i've played quite a bit of adnd and we never used thac0
Second Edition Paladin would like to step up to the plate with their Anti-Magic Field and the ability to incinerate undead.
3.5 cleric: Yours burn? *laughs* Mine explode. Even vampires.
But there's only like 10 of them in existence because the prerequisites are ridiculously high.
That transition is unmatched
But adbarian is right
"I came in here expecting a fight but you just SUCK!"
OP will be quoting without control nor care
Paladin lawful good.
Karen chaotic evil.
Big difference.
I would want to see what barbarian from first and fifth edition going up against each other would be like. I imagine just a yelling contest the entire time
it would just be a flex contest
1st is way stronger then 5th
An over 9k yelling contest?
barbarians didn't even exist yet in 1e.
@@benthomason3307 Oh really? I didn't know that.
Either way I love both ways...
Paladin is my favorite Class
Wait, I thought 5E Paladins got Find Steed? I've seen it listed in their spell list. Why is 5E Paladin so confused by that? Granted, the duration of how many you can have is WAY shorter than a decade for 5E, but still.
Other than that, great video!
I think the summoning a horse thing is an ability, not a spell. So that would be 1 difference
@@SinkMcHine Still less useful than Find Stead
Ah, so automatic rather than using a spell slot. Interesting.
1st edition, back when your alignment actually mattered because there was a war of the gods and each god pulled soldiers based on their alignments.
So why did only lawful good gods get to have paladins?
@@benthomason3307 Because Paladins were holy warriors. There was a Dragon Magazine, or two rather, that had holy (or unholy) warriors for the other alignments. There had different abilities and they weren't called paladins. There was the anti-paladin at chaotic evil ... the illrigger at lawful evil ... some other names I don't remember. The neutral one that believed in balance could go insane and produce a version that believed balance could only be achieved by eradicating all alignment extremes.
@@Michael-cf9cj isn't that like calling a gay marriage a civil union?
@@benthomason3307 Why can't alignments other than Lawful Good have warriors dedicated to gods of that alignment? Different powers, different names. Makes perfect sense to me.
@@Michael-cf9cj well by that logic shouldn't the term "cleric" be restricted to a single alignment as well?
Oathbreakers aren't just Paladins who break their oath (Bad name, I know) they're Paladins who forsake their oath to serve a dark being.
Also 5E Oaths aren't "Step one foot outside and insta-fall" unless it's really flagrant like torturing someone to death as a Devotion/Ancients Paladin, or failing to torture your foes as a Vengeance Paladin.
Holy shit, just reading what you've said about oaths makes me die inside about paladin class. I prefer
@@Mr.Hishprung If you want to be a classic LG Paragon Paladin just be an Oath of Devotion. (5E Paladin subclasses are Oaths)
Here's Devotion's tents:
Honesty: Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Courage: Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion: Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with Wisdom.
Honor: Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
Duty: Be responsible for your Actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.
And here's what 5E has to say on violating your Oath:
A Paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous Paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a Paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A Paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a Cleric who shares his or her faith or from another Paladin of the same order. The Paladin might spend an all- night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the Paladin starts fresh.
If a Paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the GM’s discretion, an impenitent Paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another.
Depends on the Oath, some Oaths you can work around easily to be evil. Like I think Oath Of The Ancients is an easy one to be evil with, same with Oath Of Vengence and Oath Of The Watchers
@@Mr.Hishprung let's be real 5e is really simple and forgiving to the point you can randomize a character in 3 minutes and be ready while 3.5 requires so consideration cause fights weren't that easy as having healing spirit to make you immortal
Oath of Vengeance isn't "torture evil", it's "go all in on big evil". You don't have to torture anyone but have no qualms about getting your hands dirty if it means absolutely murdering the hell out of whatever villain is tormenting the innocent.
1st e: you should be stripped of your powers
5th e: *Laughs in oath breaker*
At this point it's all a meme.
Note, oathbreakers actually require to intentionally break their oath for a opposite cause (and then deities that he probably fought against approve of it to fuel the divine power) and DM approval, so more than likely it would just be forced to "abandon this class and adopt another".
Why 5e socks. No role players
Depending on how long you try and continue this series, I'd love to see 5e vs pathfinder2e classes!
That seems… unfair. To the 5e ones I mean
Pathfinder 2e is built around player agency and options. I can make 4 different paladins and have each do something entirely different.
5e is a more bare bones system, good for pick up and play, and if you care more about what you and your dm get into than whatever the rules may or may not say, but if you’re looking at “what you can do as a player” pathfinder 2 will probably always win
That would be nice. Can't wait for Witch vs Warlock and Ranger vs Ranger(Pf2e ranger would be 5e Paladin in this case).
I wanna see 5e vs Pathfinder 1e, and watch 5e get freaking ROFLed.
Like shoot, even the Wizards can make Multiple Attacks at level 20 in PF1e. They are about as likely to hit as the average 3rd level rogue, but still.
@@williampearce5757 Yea but do you realise that DnD 5e has 13 classes while Pf1e has 40 classes. That doesn't count the Unchained ones and archetypes and prestige classes. Even with Mystic, DnD 5e classes are screwed.
@@milanmarkovic2721 Yeah, but that was kinda the joke. Even restricting to just core-classes.
Gotta be honest: I genuinely miss the alignment restrictions, but I totally don't miss people quibbling about the minutiae of defining alignments (and the players who then confuse "chaotic" with "whimsical")
Yeah kinda made them worth playing having to think about their actions
i dont. lawful good is my least favorite alignment to play into and also there are countless gods who wouldnt want a lawful good paladin. in my eyes a paladin's alignment should be the same or along the same lines as their god. so if they have a chaotic good god then they should be either chaotic good, chaotic neutral, or neutral good.
@@svartrbrisingr6141 Honestly most people who try to play into lawful in my games have the mistaken assumption that lawful means "strict but shiny" and if that's what you've seen I'd feel the same way. The guys who can actually nail lawful, though, they get some of the coolest RP out of it
@@johnlittle8045 Found a really good, if a bit large, guide to breaking down LG into a lot of non-obnoxious or frustrating character archetypes. Yeah, the trick with LG is to remember that it doesn't and really shouldn't put the written laws on a pedestal as some perfect and unimpeachable force. That's really more an LE tactic, honestly.
@@willieoelkers5568 Totally agree. If I start playing a Lawful Good character like Captain Picard or the TAS Batman, suddenly no one thinks I'm not LG and I get to be a caring, helpful, understanding person who just sticks to principals
Yeah 5th edition paladin won this one because of that pure chaotic energy
Class-Alignment and Class-Race decoupling was a massive improvement (albeit not without it's drawbacks, like the 'Chaotic A$$').
Ah. Want to power game. "I can do anything' non God followers.
It's okay 1e Paladin. All of the cool stuff for 5e Paladin is essentially from Unearthed Arcana first anyways (...like most of 5e tbh).
If you use your equivalent sources (Dungeon Magazine and Dragon Magazine), you have Antipaladin as your option for falling, which the old Dragon Mag 39 Antipaladin makes you more like an Assassin to ya know, teach him some manners.
Is there a site where one can read these magazines?
Unearthed Arcana is just where WotC tests new content before making it official. It's not the same
@@AZDfox yeah Dragon Magazine is better, it's meant to be played not playtested.
"Chaotic Good say what?"
"Excuse me?"
"What?"
"..."
"Oh no-"
I'm not sure what anyone was expecting here. The D&D motto with each new edition "Heroes get stronger, monsters get weaker". Also I hate that there is no serious consequence for breaking your oath these days; it just encourages bad roleplay. Being a paladin was a big deal back then because they were so hard to become; you DID NOT want to break your oath and waste it.
Yeah but the human restriction is silly
@@thomastakesatollforthedark2231
“Wow. You’re an amazing fighter, a wonderful person, not to mention so charismatic… Why haven’t you become a paladin?”
“Well, you see, my dad was part elf.”
“Yeah… and?”
“That’s it.”
I strongly agree with Jay. Aren't most people today just wanted it easy.
I feel it was made that way so it wouldn't cause frictions in groups with varying alignments. And GM's should discuss with players the tenants of the oath and how their behavior reflects on it. And if it's a problem, make a consequence to it. The good thing about 5E is its open to ideas/homebrew rules and ideas.
Thats so stupid. DM desides whats bad enough to break your oath. And only because something is hard to become it isnt better. Thats just some "the good old times" crying of people who dont want others to have fun. If new dnd is so bad and awfull, why are you watching these videos. Just find someone who wants to play first edition and stop crying.
Greetings from a lawfull good 5e paladin who really struggles with not breaking his oath because he has two criminals in his party. and that is great for roleplay and thats what dnd is about. Cool stories and roleplay and not how lucky you have to be with your charisma rolls to be able to play what you want.
"Prepare to be smitten!" I was expecting the Bard to reply, "oh I'm already smitten with you, come 'ere!"
CORRECTION:
Oathbreaker isn't *just* about breaking your oath. It's about breakimg your oath to follow some evil entity or something.
That being said, oath of conquest is basically a lawful evil paladin subclass
You can also become an Oathbreaker by committing a very evil deed. And by the logic of Oathbreaker, an Oath Of The Crown paladin would automatically become an Oathbreaker just because they refuse to follow an order given by the sovereign the had sworn fealty to
@@TheGodlikeDragon not really how it works. if you break your oath for non selfish evil reasons, you can either repent or switch do a different oath. Like devotion->vengeance.
Not to mention Crown is a lawful neutral at-best oath. Glory is pretty chaotic, et cetera
Oathbreaker *is* just about breaking your Oath.
@@eric_moore-6126 I mean, it's also about teaming up with undead minions and frightening people. Has a lot in common with some warlock builds.
Entertainingly, the word "Warlock" comes from an old....I think scottish word, meaning "oathbreaker".
Yay, paladin.
I have think of a completely different edition when I think of “First Edition.” There was an edition where elf was not just a race but a class. They were half fighter/half mage. Also, there were no paladins.
That was B/X, AKA the Moldvay D&D, and there were paladins there, a lawful fighter who swore an oath to a lawful church at 9th level became a paladin and could cast cleric spells at I think 1/3rd his fighter level. Chaotic fighters became avengers and neutral fighters and lawful or chaotic fighters who didn't meet the requirements for their specific classes became knights.
Not to mention that a paladin in fifth edition can be of any alignment and even have an oath to themselves.
@JanusPapers Should have that way a long time ago. Alignment restrictions on classes are dumb and have never made sense from a story telling, lore, or gameplay point of view.
@JanusPapers There are two mainstream interpretations of the source of a paladin's power.
One is that the power doesn't come from the god at all and it is actually closer to a monk's power than a cleric; it is the devotion to the oath that gives them their actual powers. If this is the case, than any lawful person could become a paladin, and any other alignment could also *rarely* become a paladin; lawful people are *more likely* to have strong beliefs, but it isn't a requirement.
The other is that a god grants the power, in which case alignment should have nothing to do with it. Their are plenty of LE gods wanting minions or CG gods up for blessing any inspiring hero. In this case it is basically just giving cleric powers to somebody with a sword.
The actual reason paladins were exclusively tied to LG was because of real world history. They are based on the legends around Charlemagne's Court.
@JanusPapers Except this existed in 3.5e as well. And outside the Dragon Magazines at that. You had Paladins of Freedom (CG), Paladins of Tyranny (LE) along with Paladins (of Honor (LG)) and Anti-Paladins (or Paladins of Destruction?) (CE).
Then the Dragon Magazines also had paladins of every alignments.
@JanusPapers I do. You obviously do not.
@@amirabudubai2279 Spoken as someone that doesn't understand alignment and why they are important. Replace the word lawful with order. It should make more sense now. To make an oath is a very ordered mindset. Unless you are lawful, you should be incapable of making a true soul binding oath. The term paladin also implies a holy zeal, ala templar paladins during the crusades. Paladins were in charge of protecting the pilgrimages, hence the 'good' part of the alignment.
I have no problem with neutral or evil variants assuming we change the name. However, the requirement of an oath SHOULD limit it to lawful.
1:50 losing your powers should be the logical conclusion to breaking your oath
Maybe, but Alignment in 5e is a lot less rigid than in 1e, to the point that Paladins can even be atheists, and just swear to uphold an ideal if they want to, rather than devoting themselves to a god.
So there's a lot of potential for leeway. Unless your player is claiming to be Lawful Good while acting Chaotic Evil, I doubt most DMs would complain, since most decisions PCs take can be justified, even if they don't fit into the narrow Alignment definition used in 1e.
@@reiteration6273 I'm glad that 5e alignment is much less strict than 1e, but I do agree that paladins should initially lose their powers if they don't uphold their oath. That oath is the essence of their powers; if they don't keep to it, they lose those powers. But they should be able to regain them/take new oaths/become a different subclass, etc. I think clerics work on a similar system: If you renounce your god, you lose the powers.
It's more like a dark power takes interest in you once you do the heinous act, and while you lose your inherent "good" powers, there is still a greater being that has given you access to theirs... but your spells available do change. I only had one player that took the fall to oath breaker. I summed it up as maybe this power was always available to you, but you took the "higher" path.
I agree with you from a conceptual standpoint, but from a balance standpoint I think it unfair to the person playing the paladin if they just become a worse fighter by being stupid, but obviously every game is different, and heck the paladin in the game I'm in lost their magic for a bit for narrative reasons, so I would say that it has to be done well
Lore wise, could be worse...
I was waiting for the 1e now-Fighter to summon his keeps household with the 62-63 henchmen out of which 4 were Patriarch clerics before hitting him for 12 attacks (10+ for 5e pally not having XP titles along with the 2 per original round).
When he summoned the horse, 5e paladin should have summoned a pegasus via Find Greater Steed lmao
That Karen line was daym powerful
Didn't you need to roll ridiculously high stats as a prerequisite for being a paladin in 1e?
Not too bad. The hardest was getting the 17 charisma.
I'm sorry, but i gotta side with the 1st edition on the fact that it SUCKS that a paladin player's only repercussion for murderhoboing or acting out of their alignment is just becoming an oathbreaker e_e
Players be like: CONSEQUENCES?! FOR MY IN GAME ACTIONS?! *_WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE?!_*
Bad enough that players often use Pally class to act out murderhobo tendencies thanks to their nova damage. 5e removed any sort of restriction or repercussion to player action. So they get to be super powerful AND are not beholden to any higher power/purpose. Power fantasy at its purest form.
You know that you can have narratively interesting consequences rather than mechanical ones, yes? Also they don't automatically become an oathbreaker by breaking their oath. Becoming an oathbreaker involves actively following a dark power. Otherwise you just loose your powers like normal.
You dont auto become an oathbreaker, you need to follow a dark power whilst going against your oath to be an oathbreaker, if you just break your oath then you lose your powers and are just a substandard fighter
You do realise that it's the DMs job to punish the players and not D&Ds. D&D is just a baseline so you don't have to create a TTRPG from scratch.
I add in my games that if they become an oath breaker they cannot level up paladin until they get a new oath.
I would like to see you do a D&D vs Pathfinder at one point.
But we all know Pathfinder would win hands down... with the some 70+ versions of Paladin alone!
Including my favourite - Gray Feathers of Arshea, nothing like a bunch of Paladin obsessed with free sexuality.
A couple other things a 5e Paladin has over 1e (and possibly any other edition.
1. Not required to be Lawful Good. (I often play a Chaotic Good Paladin in 5e, or Evil aligned if in an evil campaign)
2. Does not have to follow, worship nor pledge any oath to any god/deity.
My main 5e Paladin I play is a Chaotic Good Tiefling Paladin of Vengeance who mostly just seeks to root out tyranny and smite evil. Oh, and has a criminal background, tends to be stealthy, and wears light to medium armor. So, definitely not your typical "Knight in Shining Armor" type paladin. lol
There was a paladin subclass in 2e that let you be chaotic good, I forget the name though
"Does not have to follow, worship nor pledge any oath to any god/deity."
Yes, you don't need to pledge oath to god/deity. But you need an Oath. (every subclass has Oath in their name)
5e Paladin gets power from the Oath and their own belief in it, not from gods.
That's why breaking an Oath can make you lose powers or become (only for Evil Paladins) Oathbreaker. Because you no longer believe in your Oath.
1st edition: *starts to laugh*
5th: whats so funny
1st: its just funny how basic paladins have become
5th: how am i basic
1st: you have no restrictions, or roleplay requirements theirs not difference between you and your average spellsword, all you are is worse fighter or worse cleric
"I'll just become an oathbreaker." So, paladins suck from a role play perspective?
1st ed fighters have a class feature which gives them a castle, and people randomly walk into that caste and swear fealty. Also losing powers for not being lawful good is a good thing.
No, losing power for going against your god is a good thing. Hell, even if you want to restrict being Paladin to only Good it's STILL bad that *Lawful* is also required unless you go with the "My God's law is the only law that matters".
@@selonianth lawful means following a code. Paladins have to follow a code as part of their oath.
The Oath of Vengeance Paladin in the Mysteria Campaign I did when I did D&D3.5 would've respected the 1st Edition Paladin in the fact they both battle evil and protect the innocent but she would've definitely taken the opportunity to poke fun at him for being a lawful good old-timer who loses his powers for going to either neutral good or what she was chaotic good means he hasn't gotten with the times and that now a days "a chaotic good Paladin like her is to an extent more useful then a lawful good Paladin who can't do what is needed due to being a self-righteous idiot"
Does her oath forbid the use of punctuation?
OATH OF THROWING IT BACK
I mean 1e paladins also have infinite detect evil, infinite protection from evil, turn undead like a cleric (which did not consume a resource in 1e), and if you manage to get your hands on a holy sword, which only wont happen if your DM is a prick, you'll be able to dispel the magic of any caster of an equal or lower experience to you. Also their ability to cure disease by touch was tracked separate from their lay on hands, so you did not have to spend lay on hands to cure someone's disease.
The alignment restriction joke at the end also doesn't work because you only lose your powers if you WILLINGLY perform an evil act. And chaotic acts can be atoned for.
Plus being a subclass of fighters is actually good because fighters ROCK in 1e. Fighters have improved to-hit compared to other characters. In 5e-terms, imagine starting out with +0 to hit but gain +1 every level. Paladins may not automatically attract followers like fighters do, but they can still build a castle and collect taxes at level 9 like fighters can. Fighters also have better saves progression than other classes, with their saving throws improving every two levels unlike the others which take anywhere from 3 to 5. The paladin also has this but with the added benefit of having +2 to all saves compared to the fighter. So while the fighter's saves start bad but improve fast, the paladin's saves start decent and also improve fast.
First Edition Paladins: We are given expectations and rewarded for living up to them
Fifth Edition Paladins: If you impose any restrictions on me I will make a reddit post about how you're a bad gm
Literally this.
This guy got alot wrong. Paladin is a subclass of Cavalier, had insane bonuses to fighting, constant protection from evil casted around him for free, could start with an AC so high only a natural 20 could hit him for the first few levels, started with insane gold, it was not so easy to fall out of alignment as he thinks, etc etc. What happened to the paladin is ultimately why 5e sucks. No RP, no sense of consequences, no sense of deeper meaning. "Whoops broke my oath Ill become an oathbreaker." Unimaginably dull.
1st edition made a lot more sense in a world-building approach.
5th edition has no identity at all, everyone can be anything, doesnt matter, hurts the world building a lot.
You do realize that 5e is built so that dms can make their OWN worlds instead of just using the premade ones
Yuuuuuup
@@superabdoking5372 i get the intention from 1st was to ease the homebrew but that just sounds lame lol.
5e, where they literally babied everyone, and the paladin isn't even a paladin. They literally let ANYONE call themselves a paladin that no longer stands for anything, just a fighter with smite. Shitty class. 1st ed paladin wins because his stats are naturally better then the stats on the paladin. There is nothing paladin like in the 5e paladin, but like everything in 5e, its dumbed down to let anyone without imagination try to play specific things. I don't want to be lawful or good, but I want to be a paladin to just get access to smite to hit hard. Because that's a good reason to kill a concept for knighthood. Also its not good game design to incentivize people to just break their oath for more power, since that's not how anything works. No reason even follow the oath besides roleplay, but at that point, play something that's not just a guy who can hit hard and wear heavy armor. Just because ANYONE can be a paladin, does not mean its better. Especially when you can have an oath to literally eat dog turds as your oath. Just because people cant understand alignment and how to not be a jackass or break the law without ending up lawful stupid, doesn't mean the restrictions on the class were bad, it forced people to read and learn as well as earn their paladin, get good roles, have fun with the glory of getting to play one of the most powerful classes. 5e, your some dude with 8 in all stats, call yourself a paladin because you eat a lot of dog poo, and the dog poo gave you the ability to smite, since its not even tied to gods anymore. 5e sucks for what it did to most classes, rocks in other ways, but the classes are all dumbed down to the point it just feels like every characters a Skyrim character. overpowered, with tons of bs ability's that in the past took time to earn.
I have never honestly thought of a Karen like that, but haveing worked in retail it is so true
Oathbreaker is a GM book subclass that player SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO! It breaks all the things.
An interesting alternate viewpoint:
The restrictions are so high that it means the old Paladins command a level of respect for their commitment that the more wishy-washy 5e ones can't. :P
5e lost, hard. The moment the holy warrior stopped needing to be holy in any meaningful sense, it lost.
Honestly, the restrictions on being a Paladin were part of what made it amazing. You felt like you earned it, and that you were something more than a snapping unattended firehouse of smites and save bonuses.
Also there were a few magic items, particularly a few types of sword which were powerful in the hands of a fighter or ranger, but in a Paladin's hands were capable of one-shotting evil gods if need be.
Exactly, what's so great about being a paladin now when Schmendrick the chaotic evil goblin can be a Paladin?
5th edition paladin is a joke, you're just a bard cosplaying as a holy warrior
1st edition paladins reminds me of vanilla paladins in WoW.
You didn't even mention the 1e paladin having a limited amount of magic items he could own, or the mandatory tithe
Since 1 wareior subclass became it's own thing. Can we get an Eldritch Knight class aswell?
In 4e it was the Swordmage.
Eldritch Knight is a step back.
@@robbietoe never played the 4e only 5e and 3e.
1e Paladin's also need 17 Cha to even be a thing. So they are even more exclusive.
Woulda been even better if the 5e one was a conquest paladin, "oh, wait, im a conquest paladin, I'm supposed to be an asshole!"
Ya. Thanks for informing me how woke 5th is. Meaning that NOTHING has meaning or consequences. Including Hit Points. It's a pen and paper video game for those lacking the Constitution, grit and moral fortitude to play Old School.
Get your ass some Stormbringer 1st ed, OSRIC, AS&SH or perhaps Traveller and level up to MAN!
Nuff Said. (Drops scroll)
and in 1st edition its way overcomplicated there is a reason 5e is as popular as it is
Yes, playing a paladin in 1E actually meant something.
But in 1e, bards were the real gods of the party
@@brianlefebvre2743 I wouldn't know. I never allowed bards in my games.
5e Paladins don't have to be lawful good, they can be sworn to an evil god. they don't need to be Oathbreakers to be evil.
In fact, if an evil paladin turns Oathbreaker, they become a good aligned person... so weird.
1:02 Yes we can do that too, and better. There is a reason why paladins get the paladin specific spell of Find Stead, not to mention we can just summon it again if it dies
In other words, you have to put a LOT more effort into it back in 1E, and there were serious irrevocable consequences if you didn't. God knows nobody today would put up with THAT.
Like the always have protection vs evil that also got given to alies and back then it was far stronger then today's protection from evil
Literally all the things the 5e paladin is joking about as being bad, are legitimately good.
This is just driving home why 5th ed is garbage.
1:42 Aren't Oath Breakers paladins who broke their oaths because they explicitly performed evil acts in order to gain power
No most oaths can be any alignment Technically only one states that you must be good as the oath is to the concept of good.
It's not necessarily that they perform evil acts, it's that they purposefully and repeatedly act against the tenets of their oath and show no repentance.
Which does lead to the rather bizarre scenario where a Conquest Paladin not being a total bastard for a prolonged period of time makes them an even bigger evil bastard...
A First edition AD&D paladin couldn't magically summon the Warhorse, they had to travel for a week, and then undergo some test to gain it.
the absolutely MANIC laughter after "Chaotic Good say what" really has me rollin rn
I unfortunately don't have a group to play with:(
But I have created 12 different lvl 1 characters in case I found a group:)
Anyway, I created a Chaotic Neutral Female Astral Elf Anthropologist background Paladin planning Oath of Conquest. She wants to establish a new Queendom on the Mortal/Material Plane including a new Pantheon primarily made of Lost/Dead/Weakened Deities. Her planned primary War Deity is Garagos!
Paladin 5e kinda just wins because they aren’t a subclass. Yea, you can summon a horse but 5e is so much better then 1e in this case.
Edit: Adbarian I will make a bard just to seduce you, I love your creativity.
Edit 2: It has come to my attention that Paladins have Find Streed, rendering one of the few plus sides to 1e nullified. Does anyone have a good reason to play Paladin in 1e because now I’m curious.
5e can also summon a horse tho-
Also paladins have the find steed spell
Percentile Strength if you're lucky and get an 18 in it
Excuse me...First Edition Paladin is immune disease, can cure disease, most powerful subclass upgrade from fighter human...humans better than dwarfs, elves, and hobbits in first edition. And able to summon a steed...They can just dispel evil at will!
A small note to point out a bit that most of these 1st ed vs 5th ed skits overlook: upon hitting max level, 1st eds were allowed - nay, ENCOURAGED - to ASCEND, a mechanic that was restored in 4th ed and removed again in 5th.
Frankly, I'd say GODHOOD is a wee bit of a better endgame prize than being able to switch to assho... I mean, oathbreaker.
Yeah, imagine having a moral compass and not simply deciding you're gonna be a murderhobo and STILL keep your powers. Imagine having to roleplay being a chivalrous knight who puts others before himself and chooses the tougher, but better path.
5e Paladins are just fighters with extra fluff and shooty lasers.
I had the feeling that 1e Paladin was a fighter subclass even when I never played 1e
Its not really a subclass in the way 5e has. It's more of a prestigious advanced option you can take if your stats are high enough
Only the very best, most charismatic Fighters can be Paladins
Man 5e edition paladin really sounds like that bully the 1st edition player has to deal with.
I'm sad there was no oath of throwing it back joke.
The change to 5e making it that Paladins don't HAVE to be lawful good is one of the best goddamned changes this edition brought to them. Because now it's a class that can actually work WITH the party and have fun without risking losing your powers because you didn't tip the barkeep enough or your DM was on a power-trip
So yeah, you can be a Chaotic good Paladin in 5e or hell even a Lawful Neutral or Evil one.
Yes, 1st edition. When being a Paladin was meaningful.
Constantly being worked around rather than with is *a* meaning I suppose.
The guy who portrayed 5th edition Paladins perfectly illustrates why 1st edition Paladins are better. He was rude, arrogant, non-lawful, a total assh*le (not the actor, of course, I mean the character he portrays). And this version of a Paladin is totally acceptable in 5th edition; SMH. I prefer limiting Paladins to humans; all the other races generally had special powers humans do not, so this was one way humans could be special. It makes the world more reminiscent of the actual medieval world (or at least the fantasy version of it). 5th edition Paladins who are fire-breathing dragon kin are a mockery of the Lancelot/Galahad versions of Paladins you see in first edition. No argument that 5th ed. Paladins are more powerful; but at first level, 1st edition Paladins were at real risk, and it was a great accomplishment to level them up.
1:42 you only become an Oathbreaker if you break your oath to persue dark powers, if you break your oath normally you just lose your subclass/class features IIRC
Depending on how much you broke it and if you're willing to repent
Screw paladin, I'm gonna be a bard! Also honestly I miss paladins being special... Like it's better for gameplay overall that they're generic now but I miss when paladins were paragons of good and they were powerful because of it. The fact that if this dude rode up on horse glowing it meant he's a hero, he's going to help you, and the gods gave him power because he's sworn to a code.
My very first character was a paladin. Got into an argument with my god and since neither me nor my DM new of oath breakers at the time I lost my power momentarily untill I shoved it in my gods face that I was in my right to do so and they gave me back my power
Honestly hate that you can be any alignment for paladin now. The old lawful good and actual restrictions used to make for fun interactions in the party. Now everyone just plays oath breaker or conquest chaotic evil and doesn't even try to RP, at least in the parties I've been in.
Really, really miss having a game where we could be heroic and not just have a bunch of murder hobo loot goblins. It gets old fast.
5E Paladins can summon a horse every 10 minutes (if they have the spell slots for it) with Find Steed. Heck, they can get an attack dog that way if the steed in question is a mastiff.
Gnome paladin riding into battle on a mastiff is super fun
@@TheGodlikeDragon It's on my to-do list, I just haven't had the opportunity yet. My human paladin once summoned one mid-battle (we misread the casting time), much to the confusion of the bandits who thought me unarmed.
@@TheGodlikeDragon I literally have one of these in one of my campaigns. Deep Gnome Paladin with a Mastiff steed
5th edition paladins also lose their powers if they don't uphold their oaths. Oathbreaker is only if you actively defying and betray it. Failing to uphold your oath just makes you a worst fighter.
paladins 3.5 and before: get holy powers for being good, lawful and a protector and symbol. 5th ed: you can get superpowers for being a megaracist invader
Oh yes the oath breaker because we can't have bad things happen to our oh so precious players, and their even more fragile feelings. Downsides, drawbacks, and things not going how the player wants them to be, was one of the good points of earlier editions. Don't agree? You are probably offended, and want to see my manager.
If you are not Lawful Good, You are not a Paladin.
This probably won't be read, but it's an attempt. People don't see that the Karen memes are another way to bully people who are actually named Karen. Nobody would like it if their name was a meme that means nobody likes you. Some might say you could just forget about it and not let it bother you, but it sticks to people.
5th edition paladins can summon steeds too. It’s literally a spell called summon steed. They get to pick the form to and can get gryphons later.
My DM was really cool and let me choose any CR 2 creature for my Find Greater Steed; I chose a Quetzalcoatlus.
Oathbreaker paladins make no sense. Why is someone who breaks there oath to a diety rewarded for doing so!? That would be like rewarding a bodyguard for killing the person they are guarding. It makes damn sense.
It is pretty great that 5e gives paladins more freedom. Too bad that, like in the video, 5e paladins often use it as a license to be a dick.
I'm sorry, I wanted to like this, I like the concept, but it was just so loud and over the top, I couldn't make it all the way through.
Very surprised you didn't have the %e paladin rub the find steed spell into the 1e paladin's face. Missed opportunity.
Or even Find Greater Steed. Oh you have a horse, hah, cute. Let me introduce you to my *celestial griffon*
5e Paladins don't even need to be lawful good. Hasn't PC alignment basically become fluff?