How Did I Become a Grognard?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Right, there is actually not that many reasons to play a fighter vs a cleric at low levels. Once you hit 5th level the fighter starts to really outstrip the cleric a bit, but its not THAT huge a difference. At level 5 the fighter will average 5 more hit points, and will probably be wielding a d10 weapon (bastard sword) or have gone 2-handed, which is another incremental advantage. Plus he could be equipped with various bows, which are obviously pretty handy. That last bit is probably the strongest recommendation for the fighter, actually. His to-hit is only 1 point better than the cleric at this level.

I have to yield on the technical point of paladins in 1e PHB being capable of using bows, oh well. I don't believe this is a very thematically coherent thing though, this is the guy who is the point of the spearhead when it comes to fighting evil (which is pretty much everything that isn't human/demi-human). 'hang back and pepper it with arrows' is not exactly what you would expect, and even real-world knights utterly disdained missile weapons (not that they didn't use them, but they sure didn't think it was cool, except against infidels).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

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.

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.

Again, the difference is pretty small! I mean, plenty of people would use a flail simply for the RP factor if they felt like it and not feel significantly slighted. 2-7, 2-8 is equivalent to 1-8,1-10 and I don't really think anyone would call that drastically inferior. Heck, the smaller damage variation of using 2d4 is almost worth it!

*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).

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!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Clerics subsume the thematic ground of paladins.

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.

 

[pemerton]

That's kind of misleading. The matrix is the same for a 1-3 cleric as a 1-2 Paladin/Fighter/Ranger.

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.

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.

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.

*sigh* Yes, Clerics are the second-tier melee characters.

At 1st and 2nd level they are first-tier (in the pre-UA era): 1d8 vs 1d10 hp doesn't change that.

by name level, a cleric needs a 20 to hit AC -4; a fighter (Paladin) needs a 16.

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.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This idea is not presented in Men & Magic or in the AD&D PHB.

And insofar as clerics are modelled on or emulate mediaeval religious warriors (and Gygax certainly tells us that they are), then they would be called by a vocation.

Likewise, insofar as clerics are modelled on or emulate prophets (and they certain have the miraculous powers of prophets) then they would be called, as the prophets have been.

 

[GreyLord]

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!

You really view King Arthur, Galahad, Charlemagne, King Richard the Lion Heart, William the Conqueror and those like them as Clerics?

Weird.

And at the same time you view those like The Bishop in Aquila in Ladyhawke, Turin Archbishop of Reims, or Ordo Bishop of Bayeaux and those as the exact same them as the above.

Doubly Weird.

I think this just says that there are many different views on what classes represent, and we may differ far more in our views (and those intended by the creator of the game) at times than we realize.

What it boils down to is I think a difference of opinion on the similarities in theme and mechanics between different people. I think that's fine that people have different ideas and opinions on the matter. I think that if anything, this is what it really boils down to with the two different groups discussing the similarities or differences between Paladins and Clerics. They have different ideas and opinions on the matter.

 

[Sadras]

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.

Except that at 10th level your Paladin had a pretty decent weapon (if not a +5 Holy Avenger) nevermind all the other Fighter/Paladin only magical equipment.

This was a time before the tax-feat infested 3e, the balanced 4e or the bounded accuracy 5e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Right, but I think there is 'common usage' and 'what themes will the class readily evoke'. Before the Paladin class existed, you MUST play this using the cleric, and given the fundamental archetype that is the 'divine crusader' I'm pretty sure that it was considered a fairly obvious and intended choice (I can speak from experience and say that we considered it so, given that I played in the pre-Greyhawk era of D&D).

Obviously the paladin is useful in depicting this holy warrior/divine crusader type. As for why it was added to the game, I think at the time there wasn't really a 'science' to what people added to D&D. Gygax read the book, added the class because 'cool!' and that was that. I think the conception of classes at that time was rather more niche than what we usually think of today. You could make up a class that was basically a description of what you wanted in a character. The provided classes were only considered a starting point, and its not like there were themes, paragon paths, PRCs, feats, etc. back then. You just made up a new class!

 

[MNblockhead]

Wish there was a way for mods to split conversation into new threads. This has turned into a thread on whether Clerics and Paladins are distinct classes. I mean, it is interesting. It deserves its own thread. Let the rest of us go back to arguing what a grognard is.