Troll Lord Games

Paladin vs knight. I really wonder what the preference is in C&C. For me it's a paladin. But I'm biased there, cause I have played one for so many years. I enjoy both classes, just the paladin to me is more fun.

I agree. The Paladin is a lot more fun to play, partly because it's such a hard class to play well.

I suppose the Paladin is a little over-powered compared to some other fighter classes, and Knight is not so much so, and many GMs may prefer the Knight for that reason.

I fall squarely into the Paladin camp on this one! I have nothing against the knight, but the Paladin just fits my mindset. Plus like Fin said, it is a fun class to play if you actually try to play it well (and not just as a holier than thou prig)

Paladin

Im a Paladin fan from way back in the old 1e days. Back then, we Paladins used to have to walk 98 leagues in the snow, uphill, both ways!

Tr00f: Paladins are a lot more fun to play within a group that gets on board with the roleplaying opportunities that present themselves to these types of classes. Even the knight, with their code of honor, has some good RP opportunities, but the Paladin is the king of these.

I'm not so convinced the Paladin is overpowered. Their smite is only once a day, and only a tad of healing.
In 2ed and C&C I Love paladins. Not too much experience with the knight, since the Paladin was sort of the knight in 2ed (of course several times there were 1ed UA Knights (Cavaliers?) in my 2ed games, but you know what I mean.

Especially for dunguneering, the Paladin fits in better but for bigger battles, the Knigth dominates at higher levels. (against fodder at least). I'm saying this all off the cuff w/o consulting the PHB so take it with a grain of salt. I personally find CKing a horse can be troublesome, but they're both cool. But to answer you directly, I like Paladins more.

Given druthers, neither, simply because I don't consider either to be of much interest to me, as a player.

However, as this is a pick one thing, I'll go with knight as they don't have to be religious. And that suits my preference more.

Pally, no contest. Two words, "holy, avenger."

The Paladin is good but a Knight with a 18 Charisma that can give the entire party a +3 to hit for one round per level is pretty good, and if a mage can cast enhance attribute which ( if you allow ) can raise that to 23 ( +5 to hit for the party) can make life a lot easier when it come to fighting the end baddie.

IMP

ChaosImp wrote: and if a mage can cast enhance attribute which

Never seen that spell in the PHB. Is it titled something else?

Enhance attribute I believe is a 2nd level mage spell.

IMP

ChaosImp wrote:Enhance attribute I believe is a 2nd level mage spell.

IMP

Thanks. Yes, would be an awesome combo.

I'm partial to the Knight. You advance faster in terms of Experience than the Paladin. You get a Birthright mount and lot of good abilities with Horsemenship - A Paladin won't see his Divine mount until 4th level, and while perhaps better in terms of stats, the Pally doesn't get any Horsemenship. With that mount at 1st Level in a wilderness setting you can be a terror. Yeah and Inspire (1st), Embolden(3rd), and Demoralize (5th) can make a big difference especially when deal with hoards or even the big baddie.

Plus, with a Knight you can roleplay a bit differently than a Paladin. I think there is more flexibility with them.

Paladin, Paladin: I've always liked the spiritual flavour of the class, and its being a good healer/protector for the rest of the party (even if sometimes I've found the LG Alignment very difficult to portray and roleplay, with NPC and fellows as well ).
However, I like both of the classes a lot: back in the good old days of 1ed. AD&D the Paladin was a subclass of Cavalier, with the release of UA, and in my years of AD&D 2ed. I used to play a Paladin with the Cavalier Kit.
In C&C, I find that the Paladin needs way too many XP to level up, particularly since he lost the spell casting capability he had in all of the D&D editions, and for example he gains "Smite Evil" only at 9th level, while in D&D 3.X and Pathfinder it's one of his features right from the first level.
I really appreciate that in C&C Rangers and Paladins don't cast spells, but just for this reason, i think that the Paladin should need fewer XP to level up.
Greetings,
Galannor

Paladin. I love the moral tightrope they must sometimes walk.

Relaxo wrote: (of course several times there were 1ed UA Knights (Cavaliers?)

I remember looking forward to playing a paladin in an upcoming campaign, but the 1ed UA came out right before we started the campaign, and the paladin became a subclass of the cavalier. I hated that move. Our GM went with it, and my paladin was bogged down with a long list of silliness.

As a GM I like the Paladin but, I can count on less than one hand the number of players I've had in >30 years who could pull off RPing one...

Arduin wrote:As a GM I like the Paladin but, I can count on less than one hand the number of players I've had in >30 years who could pull off RPing one...

Well, that sucks. I've had three people in the last 15 that did a terrific job with a paladin.

That said, I think I prefer the knight over the paladin. For all the reason Metal listed. I like how they can control the battlefield with their abilities, and having a knight on horseback can be pretty impressive. Add in the followers, and building a stronghold and you got a whole new way to provide adventures for the knight and his companions. I think there's a lot more roleplaying opportunities there, too.

Lord Dynel wrote:

Arduin wrote:As a GM I like the Paladin but, I can count on less than one hand the number of players I've had in >30 years who could pull off RPing one...

Well, that sucks. I've had three people in the last 15 that did a terrific job with a paladin.

Your experience mirrors mine. 3 is less than one hand (5)