D&D 5E Are Paladins Merely Mediocre Multiclass Fighter/Clerics?

[FitzTheRuke]

Here's a question: With the Paladin existing: Does anyone ever play a Fighter-Cleric? I'd think if you want to play someone like that, you'd just play a Paladin, wouldn't you?

So the answer to the question in the Thread Title is really, "No. It's a Really Good Multiclass Fighter Cleric".

You might even say that it's Multiclassing Done Right. YMMV.

 

[hgjertsen]

You have a point. It's not loke a Paladin as a Subclass would be all that different from an Eldritch Knight with Cleric-like instead of Wizard-like abilities. If anything, I think a well-made Gish class has more room for variety than the Paladin has (as far as its own Subclasses go). Paladin subclasses show the narrow focus of the class, in that they're essentially "I'm the mean one, I'm the arrogant one," etc. Essentially alignment changes.

Exactly. Paladins as they are now essentially get most of their interesting abilities from the main class progression and the subclasses really only kick in very occasionally to offer some thematic flair or a single ability that makes your paladin... a little more, protectory or lawful I guess.

I think asymmetrical subclass importance at large is just a huge problem in 5E though, there are some classes where your subclass can change almost your entire playstyle (which is good!) and lots, like the Paladin, the Ranger, to a certain extent the Druid, maybe the Sorc, who don't feel that different regardless of which subclass you play.

 

[Clint_L]

I was reading the D&D Beyond article "The 10 Best Spells for the 2014 Paladin" this morning. As a player who has long favored paladins, I dove into the article with gusto.

And now it has left me wondering if paladins are really that great of a choice from a purely game mechanics perspective if your goal is play an effective, frontlines, holy warrior. Is, perhaps, a war domain cleric a better choice? (For purposes of this post, I'm not considering narrative reasons to play one class over another. That's an entirely different conversation.)

Paladins are behind the level curve in terms of when they receive channel divinity (level 3 vs a cleric's level 2) and when they receive spells levels (2nd-level slot at 5th level vs a cleric's 3rd level, 3rd-level slots at 9th level vs a cleric's 5th level, 4th level slots at 13th level vs a cleric's 7th level, etc.), they never gain 6th or higher level spells slots, etc.

When I started examining what each of the "10 best spells" did vs. the level the paladin receives the spell, it just felt unimpressive in general to me.

I tend to run long campaigns that span the level range, but when you consider that according to D&D Beyond data the average campaign ends by 7th level one wonders if paladins ever get much chance to shine. Well, I'm not sure if one wonders, but I sure do.

Paladins are pretty widely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, class in D&D5e. They are the best tanks, they have incredible group utility, they are excellent strikers with the ability to nova, and they have a high charisma, which can be very useful outside of combat.

I don't think anyone is worried about how paladins are doing. I consider them the one arguably broken class in 5e.

 

[Umbran]

Story-wise they're just Fighter-Clerics, yes.

I really don't agree, there, but I suppose YMMV.

An honor code and smites is not much of an identity...

Fireball isn't an identity either. No single mechanic is an identity, especially a character identity.

 

[ECMO3]

Paladins have unmatched single-target "nova" damage and are extremely overpowered at tables that don't run 6-8 encounter days.

It depends on the specific level, but I would say in tier 2 they are OP compared to Artificers, Warlocks, Monks, Fighters Rogues and Barbarians if you have less than 6 encounters and 2 short rests a day, but I also thing they are behind Sorcerers, Wizards and Clerics in this range.

I would lump the Paladin in the middle of tier 2 along with Ranger, Bard, Druid. Abilitie scores and build specifics influence this greatly, but that is my general observations in tier 2.

At higher tiers (3+), they are not OP compared to any classes except Fighter and Barbarian.

The Paladin does do the most Nova damage, the save bonus is great and they have a lot of nice ribbons (including healing in that). But at the end of the day control beats damage most of the time and the Paladin is limited on control spells, and if they use those spells for control they don't match up to the other classes and also don't have the slots for Nova damage.

 

[ECMO3]

I was reading the D&D Beyond article "The 10 Best Spells for the 2014 Paladin" this morning. As a player who has long favored paladins, I dove into the article with gusto.

And now it has left me wondering if paladins are really that great of a choice from a purely game mechanics perspective if your goal is play an effective, frontlines, holy warrior. Is, perhaps, a war domain cleric a better choice? (For purposes of this post, I'm not considering narrative reasons to play one class over another. That's an entirely different conversation.)

Paladins are behind the level curve in terms of when they receive channel divinity (level 3 vs a cleric's level 2) and when they receive spells levels (2nd-level slot at 5th level vs a cleric's 3rd level, 3rd-level slots at 9th level vs a cleric's 5th level, 4th level slots at 13th level vs a cleric's 7th level, etc.), they never gain 6th or higher level spells slots, etc.

When I started examining what each of the "10 best spells" did vs. the level the paladin receives the spell, it just felt unimpressive in general to me.

I tend to run long campaigns that span the level range, but when you consider that according to D&D Beyond data the average campaign ends by 7th level one wonders if paladins ever get much chance to shine. Well, I'm not sure if one wonders, but I sure do.

IF by holy warrior you intend to use weapons primarily, a Paladin is a better choice than a Cleric at level 5 and above (it is level 3 if you are not considering Cleric subclass abilities). If you intend to primarily use spells a Cleric is better, but I also think there are better options than War Domain in this case. Death, Tempest, Forge, Order, Nature, Twilight and Light are all mechanically better as the "holy Warrior" than War Domain IMO.

 

[Kurotowa]

Is the Paladin distinct from the Cleric? Most definitely. One is a priest and the other is a holy warrior. One is a spellcaster and the other is a weapon user. They're very different both thematically and mechanically.

Is the Paladin distinct from a Fighter subclass like the Eldritch Knight? Well... that's a little fuzzier. Certainly, Paladin is one of the classes with the least variation between the subclasses. The core concept is strong, but it's specialized enough that it's not a great fit for the 5e model where a class has to be able to carry a good range of variations.

In theory, I could see returning Paladin to a subclass of Fighter. You'd have to work at it, but it might be possible. In practice, Paladin has stood on its own for long enough that it's not going back. There's no putting that genie back in its bottle.

 

[Burnside]

When I started examining what each of the "10 best spells" did vs. the level the paladin receives the spell, it just felt unimpressive in general to me.

I will say, other questions aside, having read that article, those really aren't the 10 best paladin spells.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

If you want to

play an effective, frontlines, holy warrior

then Paladin is a good option. If you want a primary spellcaster rather than someone who attacks with a sword, a cleric might be better.
If you consider Lay on Hands in terms of equivalent spell slots of healing spells like the cleric would probably have to use, Paladins are much more than just 1/2 casters, although they don't get access to high-level spells so fast as full casters.
Plus aura, assorted smites, multiple attacks, and a lot of class abilities keying off one of the most useful ability-check abilities. They are a very powerful class.

 

[James Gasik]

Thematically, there's not really much difference between the Cleric (a warrior priest) and a Paladin (a warrior armed with divine powers). A lot of work has been done over the years to give Paladins bespoke abilities that Clerics lack. In 5e, the Paladin's powers couldn't fit in a subclass, since all Cleric subclasses are Domains.

Also, War Domain is a fairly shabby replacement for the Paladin's martial prowess (ever wonder why Bards and Wizards can get extra attack and Clerics can't? Because it would weaken the Paladin's mechanical identity).

While most Paladin spells aren't great when you get them (and concentration spells for a melee class that lacks Con save proficiency can be wretched), the versatility of having spells if you need them, and being able to turn them into raw damage if you don't makes up for a lot of sins. Lay on Hands grants additional healing power, and the aura can be a godsend. The various Oaths reinforce the Paladin's mechanical identity as being unique and distinct from the Cleric.

Compare and contrast the Rangers design, where the theme and mechanics of the class aren't particularly strong, and the only thing keeping the class afloat are (some) of it's subclasses. Thematically, they are some kind of Fighter/Rogue/Druid...thing*. Mechanically, they have weak situational bonuses and their primary source of additional damage is tied to a spell that requires concentration.

*Quite amusing if you're familiar with the 1e Bard.