L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Last edited by a moderator:
In AD&D, a 1st and 2nd level cleric has the same chance to hit as a 1st and 2nd level paladin. Has the same ability to have the same AC. Has marginally fewer hp (d8 raher than d10). And if a table treats a footman's mace as a one-handed weapon (I don't know if there even is an official rule on this, but in my experience many tables do so) can have the same average damage unless the paladin has 18 and hence excpetional strength.
Clerics are front-line fighters at low levels, and in my experience remain pretty handly in melee at upper levels too, although in an UA environment their lack of weapon specialisation/weapons of choice, which makes their lack of mulitple attacks more serious, makes fighters and paladins notably stronger.
9th level is a bit of a bad one to compare, because the table-based 1e attack matrices make level 9 the end of a band for clerics that starts at 7th level. If you check 7th, 8th, or 10th, the difference is 2 points. Not nothing, but not enough to make the cleric drastically less effective.That's kind of misleading. The matrix is the same for a 1-3 cleric as a 1-2 Paladin/Fighter/Ranger. And Fighters (and subclasses) keep increasing every two level what Clerics do every three levels.
So by name level, a cleric needs a 20 to hit AC -4; a fighter (Paladin) needs a 16.
A footman's mace does 2-7, 2-6. A footman's FLAIL does 2-7, 2-8 (assuming you allow this to be used one-handed! this is one of the heaviest weapons in the game, and if you do, then the fighter/paladin is certainly going to use the lighter Bastard Sword 2-8, 2-16 one handed).
In comparison, the common old long sword does 1-8, 1-12. In no way, shape, or form can a cleric select weapons the provide the same average damage.
*sigh* Yes, Clerics are the second-tier melee characters.
AFTER all the fighters (F, Ranger, Paladin). Before the Thief. Second tier. First tier is the Fighter and subclasses. No one has argued, or should argue, that Clerics are terrible or bad at melee; from the very beginning, they were designed to be good at melee (but not as good as the Fighting Man) and good at spells (but not as good as the Magic User).
Clerics subsume the thematic ground of paladins.
Ie so far from being misleading, it's straightforwardly true: a 1st or 2nd level cleric has the same to hit chart as a 1st or 2nd level paladin.That's kind of misleading. The matrix is the same for a 1-3 cleric as a 1-2 Paladin/Fighter/Ranger.
1d6+1 has the same average as 1d8. Which is to say that a footman's mace, in AD&D, has the same average damage against Size S/M targets (ie the overwhelming majority of opponents that turn up on 1st and 2nd level encounter tables/dungeon levels) as a longsword.A footman's mace does 2-7, 2-6.
<snip>
In comparison, the common old long sword does 1-8, 1-12. In no way, shape, or form can a cleric select weapons the provide the same average damage.
At 1st and 2nd level they are first-tier (in the pre-UA era): 1d8 vs 1d10 hp doesn't change that.*sigh* Yes, Clerics are the second-tier melee characters.
I haven't disputed that clerics and paladins are mechanically different. But the fact that a 10th level cleric has about a 50% chance of hitting a heavily-armouored knight (hit AC 3 on 11) while a 10th level paladin has about a two-thirds chance of the same feat (hit AC 3 on a 9, or on an 8 if the optional level-step-for-fighters rule is used) doesn't mark out a thematic distinction. Even in mechanical terms, in the pre-UA environment it is the paladin's multiple attacks that are more significant here than the greater to-hit chance.by name level, a cleric needs a 20 to hit AC -4; a fighter (Paladin) needs a 16.
This idea is not presented in Men & Magic or in the AD&D PHB.I always viewed most Clerics as people who chose to be devoted to a particular faith. But Paladins, I see as being chosen by the deity or supernatural force around which the faith sprung up. To me, that’s a significant difference.
Nobody ever said fighters weren't better. Heck, they need SOMETHING to be good at! The paladin is simply OP, and guarded by a very strict ability score gate (crappy design, but such it is). Chances are you will be playing a cleric as your 'holy fighter' because you WON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE. Of course you'd play it as a paladin if you got CHA 17 (etc.). It will work perfectly well, and the fact that you could hypothetically be an evil cleric or potentially your theme of 'sniper paladin' (WTF?) isn't possible doesn't really matter to that. Clerics subsume the thematic ground of paladins. Why, if that was a design decision, etc. are basically irrelevant!
But the fact that a 10th level cleric has about a 50% chance of hitting a heavily-armouored knight (hit AC 3 on 11) while a 10th level paladin has about a two-thirds chance of the same feat (hit AC 3 on a 9, or on an 8 if the optional level-step-for-fighters rule is used) doesn't mark out a thematic distinction. Even in mechanical terms, in the pre-UA environment it is the paladin's multiple attacks that are more significant here than the greater to-hit chance.
It may seem somewhat like that, mechanically, but thematically?
I always viewed most Clerics as people who chose to be devoted to a particular faith. But Paladins, I see as being chosen by the deity or supernatural force around which the faith sprung up. To me, that’s a significant difference.