Possibly, but they won't be so useful as that for Rangers and Bards.
The main reason being, that Paladins, with bonuses and all, typically look to me a lot like *the* most overpowered base class of all the original classes.
Why do I say that?
Can you think of ANY situation, assuming Alignment and Roleplay was not a consideration, where you would pick either a vanilla Fighter or a vanilla Ranger over a vanilla Paladin?
The sad truth is very probably, No, unless you are aiming for 5 proficiency points in a specific weapon, or intending to Dual Class later on.
Paladins get
- same Thac0 as a Fighter
- access to Cleric Spells - despite being able to cast their first spell at a higher level, they can cast these spells at a higher level and number than Rangers can!
- best Saving Throws among all the Classes (to my knowledge)
- ability to Turn Undead
- same HLAs as a Fighter
- arguably the best HLA of a Cleric
in return for
- various stat restrictions that only serve to make rolling stats for them easier
- Alignment/Reputation restrictions
- slightly slower levelling up
- max 2 proficiency slots in any weapon
I shan't even go into the Kits or the various mechanisms (let's see, 50% of all +5 melee weapons in SoA) in BG2 itself that cater for Paladin gameplay.
For this reason (which is probably no more than a personal bias, I'll admit), I very probably won't significantly improve the Spell Progression for the Paladin. For me, I think it is just nice that it stays as it is, Paladins maxing at Cleric level 4 spells, Rangers at Cleric level 7 spells. If I do improve it (ie if the point is being pressed), it will probably go up to level 6 and remain there.
(Yes yes I know
I did ignore the comparison between Vanilla Ranger and Vanilla Fighter, lol)