Why are clerics and paladins so similar?
I would understand and enjoy a class divide between the wimpy priests/healers and the badass holy warrior guy, those are cool. But as it stands Clerics are just a little weaker then Fighters but are holy, and then paladins are holy too but better. I feel like they are too similar and unnecessary in the game.
Way back supposedly the DnD cleric class was based around a vampire hunting sort of concept, and I'm guessing paladin came later
Aside from tradition I would say combat healing isn't very encouraged in most editions, so a more fighty class makes more sense to at least some of the people that make that decision as opposed to a more priest-like role
>>43767925
At the start, clerics were based on healing, while Paladins were based on attacking. Clerics were holy mages, Paladins were holy fighters.
These days Clerics are not nearly as squishy, so the gap isn't as big. However, Clerics do tend to have more abilities that can be used at range than Paladins, and can can be more versatile.
Clerics were always meant to be healers rather than front-liners, but people bitched about clerics dying too easily because everyone would run off and ignore the fact that their cleric couldn't keep up until suddenly they realize their healer's down and there's still twenty more goblins. In response, later editions made clerics beefier.
Maybe it's too subtle for you to see, but clerics and paladins do fill very distinct roles in a roleplaying game. I would hate to see either of them go.
This is why I prefer them as distinct things. Clerics as basically holy versions of sorcerers/wizards. Not built to be tanky or physical combatants.
>>43768163
Except that's wrong. Clerics were the second strongest fighting class, just behind fighters, in the first edition DnD. It's been there since the beginning, even before Paladins were a thing.
>>43768226
>Clerics were the second strongest fighting class, just behind fighters, in the first edition DnD
When your options are Cleric, Fighter, and Mage, of course the cleric will be second-best fighting class.
>>43767925
Paladins are more like knights firmly dedicated to a code of chivalry.
Clerics are dedicated religious warriors.
>>43767925
The Paladin class isn't there to specifically cater to the niche of 'Holy Warrior'.
I mean, that's what the Paladin IS, but that's missing a major part of his intention.
The Paladin is actually there to cater to the niche of LAWFUL GOOD CODE FOLLOWING Holy Warrior.
A Cleric can be a Holy Warrior equally well, often better, but he's perfectly capable of being a rampaging death cultist to a god of baby-raping.
The Paladin is always, automatically, the good-guy-heals-the-sick-saves-the-princess-lawful-good-love-friend. His fluff is baked into his mechanics in a way that the Cleric's isn't.
If you wanted to play a casty-squishy-priest Cleric, you could. Or an evil Cleric, you could. But you can't do those things with a Paladin, and the world's fluff has use for a class that when introduced to a stranger is ALWAYS Lawful Good guy.
I'll admit that mechanically, their niches are very similar, BUT that's only if your view of a Cleric is narrow-minded and you don't take into account all the Chaotic, Neutral, and Evil things a Cleric does that are perfectly normal in game.
Evil cult masters may not be Paladins, they must be Clerics. Corrupt evangelists extorting from the poor must not be Paladins, they must be Clerics.
And so when you introduce yourself, to a stranger, as a Cleric, the possibility for you to be a dick does exist. Maybe you're not a dick, but the possibility exists to that stranger, still. However, as mentioned, the Paladin's introduction carries no possible stigma. He's an in-world automatic good guy that somewhat foils the in-world NON-automatic good guy played by the Cleric.
tl;dr -- Whatever fantasy IP it is needs BIG DAMN HEROES by necessity, and a baked-in class ability that requires something to be the BIG DAMN HERO is a reasonable solution.
>>43768271
>Evil cult masters may not be Paladins, they must be Clerics. Corrupt evangelists extorting from the poor must not be Paladins, they must be Clerics.
Must they?
>>43768271
>The Paladin is always, automatically, the good-guy-heals-the-sick-saves-the-princess-lawful-good-love-friend
LMAO Paladins are the knights of Charlemagne's court
>>43768281
Ah, well, no, they could be Wizards even. Or Sorcerers. Or Witches, or Bards, or any number of things, yes of course.
But the point is that if you want them to have religious/divine based class abilities, and you want them to be evil, they may not be Paladins.
>>43768298
Well, they're the mythical interpretation of that ideal, anyway. The real historical knights were...not like that, and I get that, but the class of D&D are not beholden to their ancient name's origins or else the Barbarian would have no class abilities beyond his lack of Greek.
>>43767925
Have you ever played a cleric of an evil deity?
>>43767925
Some people will try to argue for an arbitrary split between clerics and paladin based on roleplay, but mechanics wise the two are very close -especially when you take a cleric with the war domain. The problem is that in the early D&D edition clerics were the wimpy priests/healers as opposed to the holy warrior paladin. The problem is that clerics became the healsluts of the party, a role nobody wanted to fulfill and a party member had to be forced into.
3.5e tried to give clerics something else than just healing and ended up accidentily making them one of the most powerful classes in the game, and without a doubt the most versatile class. Between their heavy armor proficiency, martial weapon proficiency (either war domain or certain prestige classes), turn undead shenanigans and incredible spell list which can be expanded even further through domains (and there's even a spell that allows you to swap out your domains for a certain period!) no class has as many options available to them as clerics, not even wizards.
Ever since D&D has tried to rebalance the roles, but there's still a lot of overlap between clerics and paladin. If you ask me, paladins should exclusively have access to the holy warrior role (perhaps even make them a fighter specialization/prestige class) while clerics should become something like divine wizards with healing and buff spells as well as holy smiting and debuff spells. The difference would be that a wizard is more flashy and offensive while a cleric would be more subtle and about controlling the battlefield.
>>43768186
This, pretty much.
I relate them to the real world equivalent of Paladin = Paramedic and Cleric = Doctor.
Paramedic is less medically inclined than a Doctor, but is more capable of getting physical and jumping headlong into trouble while the Doctor hangs back and preps the ER. Paladins pull dudes out of the shit, and the Doctor actually puts them back together.
Speaking from D&D terms.
Clerics are priests. Mortal conduits of divine beings. They both serve two entirely different roles. Clerics have faster spell progression. Better turning tables/level. And access to much higher levels of magic than paladins.
Paladins basically function as a fighter with 1/3 of the spellcasting ability of clerics. But they have smite abilities.
Paladins have lost a lot of their rarity as the editions have progressed.
In basic D&D paladin was an offshoot class of fighter. Had to be lvl10. Had to be lawful alignment and had to swear fealty to a clerical order/ Also to cast spells they had to have a 13 in wisdon (that's back when we rolled 3d6 for ability scores)
So at level 36 (old level cap) they had the functions of a lvl 8 cleric as well. Which back in those days was a piss poor amount of extra power. Smite didn't exist either. They just got the goodies a basic fighter received. On top of that they could only have as many followers as their cleric level. Followers were important then. All in all they were still rare.
In 2nd edition they were about the same but the ability score requirements were much higher. 12str 9con 13wis 17cha.
That's one hell of a prerequisite considering you rolled for ability scores. Even if you rolled 6x and picked where they were placed.
On the upside they got a huge list of abilities. Start to turn undead at level 3. Cast spells at level 9 (the spell list is laughable though)
One of the big ones was circle of power. If they had a holy sword they could dispel the fuck out of some hostile magic at will. One drawback though was that they lost 1st level fighter weapon specialization. If I recall they didn't roll for exceptional str either. Specialization is what separated fighters from rangers and paladins in the warrior subclasses.
Paladins in 2nd edition though were RARE. Every chapel didn't have 5 of them patrolling on guard duty waiting to smitespam any rogue that decided to pickpocket a monk.
>>43768487
cont due to character limit.
They truly were a very special class and character.
You couldn't just go into a tavern, order a drink and ask the bartender if there are any Paladins about town. You'd be lucky to find one in a large town/small city.
Even finding one would/could be a quest in itself. Even a chapter if they were off doing Paladin business because paladin business was serious business most of the time.
They were something most BBEGs feared when they knew what they were dealing with. Because you know dispel magics and whatnot. So much that in Ravenloft the dark lords of any domain know instantly if a Paladin steps into their domain. The more powerful the Paladin becomes the higher likelihood that while Strahd or Azalin are listening to Cradle of Filth and doin goth shit. Then all the sudden they get a Highlander hey there's an immortal near. But instead of near it's hey he/she just stepped somewhere into my 100's of miles of kingdom.
>>43768355
This is the best distinction I have ever heard.
![SetRatioSize10243000-Uther-Lightbringer-by-GASONE[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JfVOEj0.jpg "SetRatioSize10243000-Uther-Lightbringer-by-GASONE[1].jpg")
>>43767925
>Why are clerics and paladins so similar?
I was reared and raised by Warcraft when it comes to fantasy, so when I started up with Dnd & Pathfinder in my late teens you can guess I was pretty confused what a "cleric" was supposed to be.
Warcraft for me basically established PRIESTS & PALADINS.
Priests wore cloth, worked within the church, were book-learned and all that other sort of good stuff. They were like religious wizards in a way.
Paladins wore armor, hit things and were told by the church to go outside and "play". They're just religious warriors with divine powers complimenting their martial skills.
>>43768163
Clerics were always secondary front line fighters. They weren't as good as a fighter but they could stand next to one and take a beating.
>>43768872
This. D&D clerics have been armour-wearing melee combatants since the start, anyone saying otherwise doesn't know dick about D&D.
>>43768352
>Priest
>Subtle and not flashy
I take it you're not Catholic, then.
>Greyhawk doesn't bother to tell you what a Paladin actually is
Fuck.
>>43768163
>Clerics were holy mages,
Clerics were always holy knight types, rocking with heavy armor and heavy weapons. The only edition which features clerics that are less armored are 4e and maybe 5e. Mid combat healing was not a tide turner at all. They had 1 hp less on average than fighters. That's it. Better saves.
>>43769042
Clerics get no edged weapons, worse THAC0, no elite follower units, and no weapon specialization.
>>43768352
>The problem is that in the early D&D edition clerics were the wimpy priests/healers as opposed to the holy warrior paladin.
This was never true. Early D&D clerics were beefy holy knights. That's the cleric class in a nutshell.
>>43768163
Clerics have always had the second best attack and defensive capabilities in DND, ever since 1st edition.
I don't know where you got this from.
>>43768487
>>43768680
>Paladins in 2nd edition though were RARE
They were also nothing special, since in 2e they didn't have weapon specialization or any equivalent. So fighters still outfought them, and clerics still outcast them.
>They were something most BBEGs feared when they knew what they were dealing with.
I'd be more concerned about a wizard, since a 2e fighter is just a sub-par fighter stapled to a sub-par cleric.
>>43768298
>LMAO Paladins are the knights of Charlemagne's court
That's what I never got. Where did the trope of Paladins being holy magic warriors come from? Did D&D start this trend?
>>43769164
>Clerics have always had the second best attack and defensive capabilities in DND
You mean second to the wizard? ;^)
>>43769067
>Clerics get no edged weapons,
Ok? Blunt weapons also had better armor penetration than swords, usually.
>worse THAC0
Second best in game, plus buff spells. A decent tradeoff.
>no elite follower units
Almost totally irrelevant. Occasionally you might get something useful.
>and no weapon specialization
Neither did the paladin (in 2e anyway)... hell, paladins didn't typically get followers at all.
>>43769042
>They had 1 hp less on average than fighters.
Maximum Warrior-block HP is 9(d10+4)+33, maximum Priest-block is 9(d8+2)+22. That's assuming both of them have 18 CON.
Averages are Warrior: 118.5
Priest: 91.5
>>43769173
Three Hearts and Three Lions.
>>43769173
DnD does what it wants. This is a gorgon.
>>43769167
>nothing special
What is the huge list of special abilities the paladin gets?
>>43769179
>follower units
>totally irrelevant
Get out. Get right out, and then kill yourself.
>>43769164
After the other Warrior-block classes.
>>43769167
>They were also nothing special, since in 2e they didn't have weapon specialization or any equivalent. So fighters still outfought them, and clerics still outcast them.
They had ridiculous stat requirements. 17 CHA minimum, 13 WIS, 12 STR. Okay, so 13 WIS and 12 STR isn't too hard, but having to roll a 17 in CHA was a pain.
They had, IIRC, the same stats as a Fighter, including weapons specialization, but also had some Cleric spells. To make up for this, it took them much longer to level. Possibly even the most XP of any class at the time, except maybe Wizard.
>>43769197
>After the other Warrior-block classes.
And that somehow proves that Clerics were not to be front liners, like the guy I was replying to insisted?
>>>43768163
>Clerics were always meant to be healers rather than front-liners
>>43769183
Why are you disingenuously listing average hp of max con characters? At most, you should figure in the whole range of con scores into average hp.
>>43769197
>What is the huge list of special abilities the paladin gets?
Mediocre compared to the cleric. Their save bonus, for example, still isn't as good as being a cleric.
>>43769199
>including weapons specialization
No, but they do get Detect Evil (60' radius), +2 to all saving throws, Immunity to Disease, Lay on Hands for 2HP/Level once daily, Cure Disease once per week per ever five levels, Aura of Protection from Evil (10' radius), Circle of Power (30' radius, must have a holy sword), the ability to turn undead, demons, and devils as a cleric 2 levels lower (clerics can only turn undead), Call a Steed at level 4+, and gets priest spells from level 9 onwards.
>>43769197
>Get out. Get right out, and then kill yourself.
You get about 20 1st level fighters (presumably they can't levellup but who knows), only a vague improvement over a level 0 type and likely to evaporate in any fight. Plus, like the cleric, a blob of level 0s.
You also get a couple sub-henchmen (who presumably can't gain levels, but who knows).
Whoop de frikkin doo.
>>43769199
>including weapon specialization
Are we talking 2e? They didn't, afaik.
Its hard to justify playing a paladin instead of a fighter in 2e as even if their alignment nonsense never causes an issue, their item limits and getting some misc defensive abilities in lieu of superior attack effects makes them kind of iffy.
I prefer the UA pala-cavs... even worse roleplaying nonsense aside.
>>43769221
Clerics can turn demons and devils as "Special" and that's what the turn undead thing referred to. There wasn't some secret paladin only Turn Undead chart.
>>43769221
>No, but they do get Detect Evil (60' radius), +2 to all saving throws, Immunity to Disease, Lay on Hands for 2HP/Level once daily, Cure Disease once per week per ever five levels, Aura of Protection from Evil (10' radius), Circle of Power (30' radius, must have a holy sword), the ability to turn undead, demons, and devils as a cleric 2 levels lower (clerics can only turn undead), Call a Steed at level 4+, and gets priest spells from level 9 onwards.
I forgot about the automatic horse they got. Wasn't it a requirement that they go on a mystic mission to find their steed?
2nd Ed was crazy. Definitely a lot more simulation and proto-Conan the Barbarian world stuff. I forgot about getting followers until this thread.
>>43769221
The only thing there that isn't equal or sub-par with a cleric hinges on a ludicrously rare magic weapon.
The mount is okay, but not very likely to survive or matter as it doesn't keep up in hp.
>>43769214
Alright then.
CON 1 (-3 mod): W 55.5 P 35.5
CON 2 or 3 (-2 mod): W 64.5 P 44.5
CON 4-6 (-1 mod): W 73.5 P 53.5
CON 7-14 (0 mod): W 82.5 P 62.5
CON 15 (+1 mod): W 91.5 P 71.5
CON 16 (+2 mod): W 100.5 P 80.5 (max for P)
CON 17 (+3 mod): W 109.5
CON 18 (+4 mod): W 118.5
CON 19-20 (+5 mod): W 127.5
CON 21-23 (+6 mod): W 136.5
CON 24-25 (+7 mod): W 145.5
If you have any advice on working out the probabilities of somebody's CON changing over the course of getting to level 20, and by how much, then please tell me.
>>43769249
>Clerics can turn demons and devils as "Special"
Nope.
>Special creatures include unique undead, free-willed undead of the Negative Material planes certain Greater and Lesser Powers, and those undead that dwell in the outer planes.
Yes, paladins and clerics can turn GODS.
The 'turning demons/devils' thing might be something that was cut, because I can't find mention of it in the Combat (Turning Undead) page.
>>43769269
You'd drop the irrelevant 1 and 19-25 scores, look up the frequencies of each, and apply each to the average as appropriate.
When all's said and done, the fighter works out to have probably closer to 1.02 more hp a level or so on average than the cleric rather than 1, due to the tiny, tiny difference a con score will make for the top 6-7% of characters.
Vastly superior saves probably give clerics the edge in survivability, spells aside.
>>43769292
PPDM's the only really big difference (4 points at L1, when the others are all 1-2), and the differences close up at high levels anyway.
>>43769298
+2 vs spells and +4 vs poison and paralyzation at level 1 is nothing to sneeze at. They're 2.5x as likely to survive at level 1 vs poison and such.
Even at level 7, which is honestly pretty high level for AD&D, they still have a +3 to paralyzation and poison saves over fighters.
Again?
>>43769383
>debating D&D archetypes
>Why are you still playing D&D? Its 2015! I mean COME ON!
>>43767925
>>43769389
Read the op, then read the image again.
>>43769383
Some of us actually want to play DnD clones because the design space has been mapped to hell and back, is very simple and fun at its core, and has a shit ton of people who play and know the system so they won't be intimidated by something else or a homebrew.
Seriously, go tip this fedora somewhere else.
>>43769395
So to answer your question, you're confused as to why people are discussing D&D in a thread about D&D archetypes? Neato.
>>43767925
Clerics have always outclasses Paladins in like every edition. If you want to play a guy who wears heavy armor and hits people with weapons but can also heal and drop spells, you always choose a Cleric. If you want to jerk off and be stupid, you play a Paladin.
>>43769236
>You get about 20 1st level fighters (presumably they can't levellup but who knows), only a vague improvement over a level 0 type and likely to evaporate in any fight. Plus, like the cleric, a blob of level 0s.
You need to go back and look at the tables for fighter followers again. Yes, the main body is a bunch of 0-level fighters, but elites are 1st level, and a commander of anywhere from 5th to 7th level. And troops can level up, though they do so slowly since they're a unit.
>>43769167
>They were also nothing special
True. But the whole "dispel hostile magics as long as they're holding a holy sword" thing. That becomes a very real perk when the curve in magic goes from doing a little damage to you or low to mild annoyance to maiming/killing.
On top of that most good aligned outsiders or churches look very favorably on a paladin. Or his cause would be just in their eyes strictly because he's a paladin.
>fighters still outfought them
>and clerics still outcast them
You're 100% right in that statement.
If your game's deeper than just kicking the front door down after the barkeep slaps an x on your map where the cave is.
That Charisma when rallying the troops or seeking aid and information is also a nice bonus.
I've seen some damn good gameplay come out of Paladins. Hell some of the most memorable play I've had was running a game and one of the characters played a Paladin that was totally against it at first.
>>43767950
Paladin was originally a fighter prestige class that let them get holy powers, and later became a core class for some reason (which is a bit odd because the evil counterpart of the paladin, the blackguard, is still a prestige class despite being virtually identical to the paladin but with holy powers replaced with unholy ones).
>>43769183
In AD&D it's a full HD at first level for fighters while every one else roll their dice. So it would rather be like this:
Warrior: 10+4+9*(5,5+4)+33 = 132,5
Cleric: 10*(4,5+2)+22 = 87
>>43769173
>Where did the trope of Paladins being holy magic warriors come from?
Charlemagne being seen as a pseudo-magical holy figure for quite some time and his knights literally killing monsters and being elves in folk tales
>>43769173
>hurr durr why are paladins holy warriors if their historical inspirations are the knights from the court of the first Holy Roman Emperor?
Wat.tiff.
>>43769790
No, Paladin was original "not good fighter + not good cleric."
I've always considered them highly distinct. A paladin is a warrior of righteousness. A cleric is a warrior of God. The only time there is overlap is if the god a cleric follows espouses the same ideals as a paladin.
Chaotic good cleric es best cleric.
>>43769389
>Its 2015! I mean COME ON!
I hate how this meme has replaced constanza.
>>43771810
Why?
>>43771823
its objectively less dank
![279131[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/PCoPZWK.jpg "279131[1].jpg")
>>43769173
>Where did the trope of Paladins being holy magic warriors come from? Did D&D start this trend?
While Arthur's knights were chasing flying chessboards and getting their asses kicked by Anglo-Saxons, Charlemagne's paladin were removing kebab. Especially the Chanson de Roland became famous. These kebab removers became paragons of Christian virtue (for example, Charlemagne was considered one of the Nine Worthies and the Chanson de Roland one of the most famous songs all across Europe). Now consider that (at least in early D&D) lawful good magic was more or less Christianity devoid of all explicitly Christian references, and it becomes understandable why Paladin become the generic holy knights. They can be called Crusaders, but those have extremely explicit links to Christianity and that would offend midwestern Evangelists and Kebabs alike.
>>43767925
Paladins and Clerics have mechanical differences, but also an ethical one.
Clerics put their faith in their God above all. Their God is their meaning. If their God tells them to do something, anything, they fucking do it. Gods know what they're doing. Regardless of any worldly consequences.
Paladins believe in morality, and trust their patron God to allow them to do good/evil. If they have to, they'll ditch their God if it's the morally correct thing to do. Regardless of any personal consequences.
One has a Lord, the other has a Patron.
At least, that's how I see it.
>>43769399
>and has a shit ton of people who play and know the system so they won't be intimidated by something else or a homebrew.
this is not excuse, if you cant get people to play other rpgs you dont play rpgs.
if only justin bieber go to your city, you stop going to shows and not go to his music show because its the only stuff that exist.
>>43767925
Didn't really play 2e AD&D, but my understanding is that paladins were basically a subclass of fighter in the same way druid was a subclass of Cleric. In any case, their was a distinction.
3.x has the problems you talk about
4e clerics were holy leaders (hate that role word, btw) and paladins were holy defenders (which could be strikers as well with supplements).
5e Clerics are holy warriors and paladins are oathbound warriors (who may or may not be worshiping a god at all).
...it looks like the problem's been fucking solved, mate. Maybe you shouldn't be playing a 15 year old mistake?
